The aluminum of Flights 11 & 175 was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions.

[pomeroo]

You are saying they destroyed the evidence.



And I am still waiting for Pomeroo to answer my four questions.

(I guarantee you he won't.)


* * *


All the structural steel was recovered--as you know.

NIST claims that the amount of steel available for their tests was more than adequate--as you know.

You've been caught lying, Max.

You're not a scientist, and you've been caught lying.

[Max Photon]

All the structural steel was recovered--as you know.

NIST claims that the amount of steel available for their tests was more than adequate--as you know.

You've been caught lying, Max.

You're not a scientist, and you've been caught lying.



Pomeroo, answer the four questions.

1.) What percentage of structural steel did NIST collect and study?

2.) What percentage of perimeter panels did NIST collect and study?

3.) How many fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 did NIST collect and study?

4.) You claim no WTC structural steel was destroyed. Where is that steel now?

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

Gentle readers,

Here's the deal.

I claim, among other things, that thermite was placed inside box columns to heat weaken the steel.

Pomeroo, e^n and other claim that my model - MAX-MIHOP - is unprovable, untestable, not falsifiable, makes no predictions, etc.

I say that MAX-MIHOP makes testable predictions and is falsifiable - just look inside fire-affected box columns.

(Even Pomeroo could do it.)

However, the VAST majority of the steel - the evidence - was destroyed.

Furthermore, that speck that they did save was not from key areas. For example, no fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were collected and studied!

So, just because the evidence was destroyed is not a reflection of weakness of MAX-MIHOP. That is pure spoliation. That is a crime in itself!

NOW Pomeroo and some of these other _____ are calling me a liar, because I said WTC steel - evidence - was destroyed.

Pomeroo claims NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED, and that Max Photon is a liar for saying WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED.

So I have presented our Forensic Einstein with four simple questions, listed above.

Let's just wait and see how Pomeroo gets out of this one.

Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

Gentle readers,

Here's the deal.

I claim, among other things, that thermite was placed inside box columns to heat weaken the steel.

Pomeroo, e^n and other claim that my model - MAX-MIHOP - is unprovable, untestable, not falsifiable, makes no predictions, etc.


Let's be more precise. I, and others, claim that your model is utter rubbish--complete nonsense fabricated out of whole cloth--a steaming pile of [Rule 8]. There is no--zero--evidence suggesting the use of thermite at the Twin Towers. Smuggling into the buildings the amount of thermite required for your fantasy would be a logistical nightmare. No demolition specialist takes you seriously.




I say that MAX-MIHOP makes testable predictions and is falsifiable - just look inside fire-affected box columns.

(Even Pomeroo could do it.)


Bring your silly, uninformed speculations to the attention of a real scientist. The ones here think you're a joke.




However, the VAST majority of the steel - the evidence - was destroyed.



Sorry, Max, you were caught lying. No evidence was "destroyed." NIST said that they had all the steel they required.




Furthermore, that speck that they did save was not from key areas. For example, no fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were collected and studied!

So, just because the evidence was destroyed is not a reflection of weakness of MAX-MIHOP. That is pure spoliation. That is a crime in itself!

NOW Pomeroo and some of these other _____ are calling me a liar, because I said WTC steel - evidence - was destroyed.

Pomeroo claims NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED, and that Max Photon is a liar for saying WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED.


Yup. For once, you got it exactly right. Pomeroo is correct in stating that Max is lying when he claims that steel was destroyed.



So I have presented our Forensic Einstein with four simple questions, listed above.

Let's just wait and see how Pomeroo gets out of this one.

Max

* * *



Your questions are unimportant. No steel was destroyed. NIST had all the steel it required. Max is lying.

[Max Photon]

* * *

I guaranteed Pomeroo would not answer my four simple questions.

Furthermore, note that Pomeroo sticks by his claim that NO STEEL WAS DESTROYED.


Max

[Max Photon]

stop it. you're making my unborn children stupid


Try dating outside of your zip code.

[pomeroo]

* * *

I guaranteed Pomeroo would not answer my four simple questions.

Furthermore, note that Pomeroo sticks by his claim that NO STEEL WAS DESTROYED.


Max



Your four unimportant questions, you mean. Are you contending that it is my original claim that no steel was destroyed? There is a huge controversy raging on this topic and I have staked out an extreme position? C'mon, Max, am I alone in observing that you've been caught lying? Tell us who thinks that steel was improperly destroyed before it could be examined. What is this claim based on?

http://911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

Oh, don't forget to show us the EVIDENCE suggesting that huge quantities of thermite were used at the Twin Towers. There is EVIDENCE, isn't there, Max.

[Unsecured Coins]

Try dating outside of your zip code.
try dating outside your bloodline

[Max Photon]

Your four unimportant questions, you mean. Are you contending that it is my original claim that no steel was destroyed? There is a huge controversy raging on this topic and I have staked out an extreme position? C'mon, Max, am I alone in observing that you've been caught lying? Tell us who thinks that steel was improperly destroyed before it could be examined. What is this claim based on?

http://911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

Oh, don't forget to show us the EVIDENCE suggesting that huge quantities of thermite were used at the Twin Towers. There is EVIDENCE, isn't there, Max.



Gentle readers,

Remember that I guaranteed Pomeroo would not answer these four simple questions:


Pomeroo:

1.) What percentage of structural steel did NIST collect and study?

2.) What percentage of perimeter panels did NIST collect and study?

3.) How many fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 did NIST collect and study?

4.) Pomeroo, you claim no WTC structural steel was destroyed. Where is that steel now?


I stand by my guarantee.

Pomeroo is trapped.


Max 100% Photon (Guaranteed!)


- - - - - - -


PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:


The official JREF NISTIAN position is:

NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED,
and there was
NO SPOLIATION.


* * *

[pomeroo]

+-Gentle readers,

Remember that I guaranteed Pomeroo would not answer these four simple questions:


Pomeroo:

1.) What percentage of structural steel did NIST collect and study?

2.) What percentage of perimeter panels did NIST collect and study?

3.) How many fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 did NIST collect and study?

4.) Pomeroo, you claim no WTC structural steel was destroyed. Where is that steel now?


I stand by my guarantee.

Pomeroo is trapped.


Max 100% Photon (Guaranteed!)


- - - - - - -


PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:


The official JREF NISTIAN position is:

NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED,
and there was
NO SPOLIATION.


* * *


You've been caught lying, Max. Your game is over.

No thermite was planted at the WTC complex. You don't have a shred of evidence for your fantasy.

NIST claims it had sufficient steel for the tests it performed. Tell us why the agency is wrong.

You're done, Max. Exposed. Kaput.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:


The official JREF NISTIAN position is:

NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED,
and there was
NO SPOLIATION.


* * *

Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).
Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the James Randi Educational Foundation Forums.
Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST).
The James Randi Educational Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Testing have no formal relationship to each other (to the best of my knowledge
The term "NISTIAN" was a derogatory term coined by poster Apollo20 in an effort to demonize and insult those who did not agree with him
The statement, "NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED, and there was NO SPOLIATION," is a strawman logical fallacy

[pomeroo]

Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).
Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the James Randi Educational Foundation Forums.
Ron (pomeroo) is not a representative of the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST).
The James Randi Educational Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Testing have no formal relationship to each other (to the best of my knowledge
The term "NISTIAN" was a derogatory term coined by poster Apollo20 in an effort to demonize and insult those who did not agree with him
The statement, "NO WTC STEEL WAS DESTROYED, and there was NO SPOLIATION," is a strawman logical fallacy


All of the above statements are completely correct.

Tell us more about the steel that was destroyed, Max. Who destroyed it? When?

Show us your evidence for thermite at the WTC complex.

[JimBenArm]

All of the above statements are completely correct.

Tell us more about the steel that was destroyed, Max. Who destroyed it? When?

Show us your evidence for thermite at the WTC complex.
The sad, sad fact is that he has shown you all of his evidence.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Pomeroo cannot answer the four simple questions.


Max Photon can.


* * *

[uruk]

You are saying they destroyed the evidence.

After the investigators got the information they needed.
Investigators and structural engineers went over the steel and selected the parts which told the story of what happened to the building structures when the planes crashed into it.

You do know that law enforcement return or destroy evidence after the trials are over. If they didn't we'd need huge ware houses to store all that stuff.

[uruk]

* * *

Pomeroo cannot answer the four simple questions.


Max Photon can.


* * *

The steel was was sold off.
The steel was not destroyed, it was recycled.

[uruk]

Oh and Max, you never answer my question as to how you determined that the pipe like structures in the picture you posted are thermite shock tubes and not something else.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

* * *

Pomeroo cannot answer the four simple questions.


Max Photon can.


* * *
RE Your post title: Two wrongs don't make a right or, more specifically, repeating a strawman statement ad nauseum does not make it true.

[uruk]

Apollo20's AP model, while the high of elegance, does not appear to fit some key observations (unless I am not interpreting the model correctly).

WTC2/301/81 metal fire
The "white glows"
The metal flows
The seven major WTC2 "smoke releases"
The "pressure pulses"
The "smoke puffs" (as if from a steam pipe organ)
And a number of others...



That leaves NIST vs MAX-MIHOP.

NIST can't explain that above list either.

That leaves...guess who?


The sooner you and others accept this reality, the sooner we can clean up the mess.

* * *

Here's what NIST says about the white glows and melted metal. Exceprted from here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Heres what NIST says about thermite.:

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

Hmmmm. I thought you said NIST had nothing to say about these things. This makes me kind of wondering if Max-Photon has actually read the NIST report.

Sounds like Max-photon is closer to 10% than 100%

[Max Photon]

* * *

uruk scribbled:

Hmmmm. I thought you said NIST had nothing to say about these things [thermite]. This makes me kind of wondering if Max-Photon has actually read the NIST report.

Sounds like Max-photon is closer to 10% than 100%



Uruk, what is wrong with you?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018136#post3018136

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018167#post3018167

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018960#post3018960

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3021813#post3021813


Oh, and who can forget:

http://maxphoton.com/2007/05/31/an-example-of-nist-hiding-in-plain-view-how-thermite-was-used-to-cloak-the-controlleddemolitions-of-the-wtc-towers.aspx


Uruk, YOU are the liar.

* * *

[uruk]

* * *

uruk scribbled:

Hmmmm. I thought you said NIST had nothing to say about these things [thermite]. This makes me kind of wondering if Max-Photon has actually read the NIST report.

Sounds like Max-photon is closer to 10% than 100%



Uruk, what is wrong with you?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018136#post3018136

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018167#post3018167

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3018960#post3018960

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3021813#post3021813


Oh, and who can forget:

http://maxphoton.com/2007/05/31/an-example-of-nist-hiding-in-plain-view-how-thermite-was-used-to-cloak-the-controlleddemolitions-of-the-wtc-towers.aspx


Uruk, YOU are the liar.

* * *

O.K. My bad about the Thermite.
But you said here:
Apollo20's AP model, while the high of elegance, does not appear to fit some key observations (unless I am not interpreting the model correctly).
WTC2/301/81 metal fire
The "white glows"
The metal flows
The seven major WTC2 "smoke releases"
The "pressure pulses"
The "smoke puffs" (as if from a steam pipe organ)
And a number of others...


That leaves NIST vs MAX-MIHOP.

NIST can't explain that above list either.
to which I quoted:
"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."


O.k. so Max-photon is more like 20%

P.S. I noticed how you seem to ignore certain questions or parts of posts.

Did you forget about this part of my previous post? perhapse on purpose?

[Max Photon]

* * *

Sorry uruk,

Go melt aluminum, and mix in organics - whatever you want - and you will find the organics do not cause the aluminum to glow. The aluminum will remain silvery.

You will find the organics do not even mix in.

Try again.

Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

uruk,

If you think I am not answering your questions, please give me a little slack.

I am just one guy taking on large herd of angry natives.

Numbering your questions really helps, because then you can say, "Hey Max, can you attend to Post #xxx, question #y."

Not only do I answer questions, I scan for intelligent ones, because my models can be no stronger than the criticisms leveled against them.

So ask away, but they'd better be intelligent.

Cheers!

Max

P.S. Note that Pomeroo doesn't answer questions.

* * *

[uruk]

* * *

Sorry uruk,

Go melt aluminum, and mix in organics - whatever you want - and you will find the organics do not cause the aluminum to glow. The aluminum will remain silvery.

You will find the organics do not even mix in.

Try again.

Max

* * *

NIST said mixed with not in. And it said the organics would glow orange not the aluminum. NIST also said that slag forming on the surface of the metal would also glow orange.

And if you go to this web site here: http://www.metaullics.com/sams.html ,it talks about removing organics from aluminum. It also has a nice picture that shows some melted aluminum with slag on top of it glowing a nice orange.

Try again Max

[uruk]

* * *

uruk,

If you think I am not answering your questions, please give me a little slack.

I am just one guy taking on large herd of angry natives.

Numbering your questions really helps, because then you can say, "Hey Max, can you attend to Post #xxx, question #y."

Not only do I answer questions, I scan for intelligent ones, because my models can be no stronger than the criticisms leveled against them.

So ask away, but they'd better be intelligent.

Cheers!

Max

P.S. Note that Pomeroo doesn't answer questions.

* * *

Well the question in particular is about the photo of the shock tubes. I wonder what criteria you used to determine that those structures were Shock tubes and not something else.

Do you have pictures of shock tubes to compare them with?

How were able to determine that were not some other sort of conduit, for example electrical or data lines, or even fire supression lines?

Or were you making an assumption?

take your time.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

* * *

Sorry uruk,

Go melt aluminum, and mix in organics - whatever you want - and you will find the organics do not cause the aluminum to glow. The aluminum will remain silvery.

You will find the organics do not even mix in.

Try again.

Max

* * *

As uruk has pointed out, your above statement is, at best, mistaken and, at worst, an intentional strawman. Please refrain from restating it in the future.

[Max Photon]

Well the question in particular is about the photo of the shock tubes. I wonder what criteria you used to determine that those structures were Shock tubes and not something else.

Do you have pictures of shock tubes to compare them with?

How were able to determine that were not some other sort of conduit, for example electrical or data lines, or even fire supression lines?

Or were you making an assumption?

take your time.



Why don't you tell us what NIST had to say?


* * *

[Max Photon]

NIST said mixed with not in. And it said the organics would glow orange not the aluminum. NIST also said that slag forming on the surface of the metal would also glow orange.

And if you go to this web site here: http://www.metaullics.com/sams.html ,it talks about removing organics from aluminum. It also has a nice picture that shows some melted aluminum with slag on top of it glowing a nice orange.

Try again Max


Oh the Purgatory of having to explain the entire universe every single day...


Uruk, you are showing aluminum that was heated while contained.

Uncontained aluminum will flow away from the heat source as soon as it melts. Therefore it is difficult to get uncontained aluminum heated much past the melting temperature.


Please explain the following:


What caused the 10-minute metal fire? Please explain what is burning, and where.

What is the fuel source that burned so vigorously for the 50 minute hour, melted aluminum, and heated the melted aluminum from red-orange to white hot?

What was the mechanism that contained the aluminum for it to be heated to white hot?

What was the mechanism that created the multiple metal flows? Please account for the timing, volumes, and locations of discharge.

Why were the metal flows so close to collapse? (Wouldn't the fuel source be getting a little tired by then?) Was there any correlation between the metal flows and collapse initiation?

NIST says that the pressure pulses, smoke puffs, white glows, metal flows, ejected debris, "steam pipe organ puffs", falling debris, the unusual, fast-changing fires, the hanging objects changing positions in time, and other bizarre phenomena WERE CORRELATED. Please provide a complete model - as I have (NIST hasn't) - to explain ALL of these correlated phenomena (I expect a unified answer).


Of course, it would be nice if you could not waste time guessing, but go the proper reports, and support NIST's case, since NIST's case is your case.

Please make your answers intelligent.

Thanks!

Max

* * *

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Please make your answers intelligent.

Thanks!

Max

* * *
Why; your questions haven't been.

[uruk]

Why don't you tell us what NIST had to say?


* * *

Wow!!! Lame evasion there Max. I'm dissapointed. Especially with how much you hype yourself.

As far as I know NIST does not say anything about the two tube like structures in the picture you posted. But that's niether here nor there.

What I asked was what criteria did you use to determine that those tubes were shock tubes and not something else.

Care to answer or are you going to evade again?

[Max Photon]

Wow!!! Lame evasion there Max. I'm dissapointed. Especially with how much you hype yourself.

As far as I know NIST does not say anything about the two tube like structures in the picture you posted. But that's niether here nor there.

What I asked was what criteria did you use to determine that those tubes were shock tubes and not something else.

Care to answer or are you going to evade again?


Gotcha!

I wanted you to say NIST does not say anything about the two tubes.

What led me to conjecture those are thermite-dusted shock-tube is the complex multiplication of all my past experiences, and all of my 911 research.

Thermite-dusted shock-tube is the solution to a long list of observations and constraints.

To put it in terms even you might understand, thermite-dusted shock-tube is the best fit, relative to my research (it may not be relative to yours).

I knew to look for it, as I knew to look for the white flashes in the 2nd hit - north face cropped video.

Read that again.

I KNEW to look in the NIST reports for thermite-dusted shock-tube. I KNEW plausible deniability would require that they clearly show at least one example.

I KNEW to hunt videos for shock-tube ignition flashes.

I KNEW to look for a thermite ignition mechanism that wouldn't require explosives, radio waves, etc.

And guess what I found.


Max

* * *

[Narveson]

Gotcha!

I wanted you to say NIST does not say anything about the two tubes.

What led me to conjecture those are thermite-dusted shock-tube is the complex multiplication of all my past experiences, and all of my 911 research.

Thermite-dusted shock-tube is the solution to a long list of observations and constraints.

To put it in terms even you might understand, thermite-dusted shock-tube is the best fit, relative to my research (it may not be relative to yours).

I knew to look for it, as I knew to look for the white flashes in the 2nd hit - north face cropped video.

Read that again.

I KNEW to look in the NIST reports for thermite-dusted shock-tube. I KNEW plausible deniability would require that they clearly show at least one example.

I KNEW to hunt videos for shock-tube ignition flashes.

I KNEW to look for a thermite ignition mechanism that wouldn't require explosives, radio waves, etc.

And guess what I found.


Max

* * *

So you leap from "conjecture" to "know" based on past experiences? These past experiences include working with thermite-dusted shock-tubes, one must assume.

Or do you have no experience with them?

[uruk]

Oh the Purgatory of having to explain the entire universe every single day... Don't hurt yourself. I did not ask for an explination of the entire universe. So relax.


Uruk, you are showing aluminum that was heated while contained.

Uncontained aluminum will flow away from the heat source as soon as it melts. Therefore it is difficult to get uncontained aluminum heated much past the melting temperature. Well it was pretty hot inside the building. Enough to heat up steel to around 1000 degrees. With aluminum's relatively low melting temperature I think conditions were pretty conducive to keeping the alluminum melted long enough to pour out of wherever it poured out of. Aluminum also does a good job conducting heat. That's why they use it as heatsinks. (copper is better but more expensive)


Please explain the following: Wow point out one error and you have explain the entire universe in one day. But I'm sure your not looking for that either. Well, lets see. I'll answer what I can.


]What caused the 10-minute metal fire? Please explain what is burning, and where. I guess what ever heating up the metal That would be the fires, no?
What was burning? well in addition to the jet fuel, there was all the furiture (desk, sofas, chairs, tables, computers, carpet, celing tile, clothes, cleaning fluids, plastic doodads, clothes, pvc conduit, sheet rock, all the paper in the file cabinets, wall paper, pens, pencils, paintings, pictures, books, ring binders, TVs, cameras, people (fat burns you know). You know all the usual stuff an office building has.
Why 10 minuets? Maybe that's all the melted aluminum that made it to wherever it poured out of.

What is the fuel source that burned so vigorously for the 50 minute hour, melted aluminum, and heated the melted aluminum from red-orange to white hot?
See above.
Firemen have noted that an average house fire can last for hours and it can get quite hot in there.
Imagine how long and a HUGH office building can burn and how hot it can get inside.
Oh wait. NIST did an experiment to find just that sort of thing out.

Oh by the way can you show me the white hot metal flow? Make sure the camera exposure level is noted.

What was the mechanism that contained the aluminum for it to be heated to white hot? An area where the temperature got hot enough to melt the aluminum.
There is a picture out there on the net (I'll try to find it for you)of aluminum rims on several cars parked in a parking garage just melted away leaving long streams of melted aluminum. There was no containment mechinisim just the parking garage.

What was the mechanism that created the multiple metal flows? Please account for the timing, volumes, and locations of discharge. Why? Once melting temperatures have been reached the time it takes for the aluminum to melt depends on it's thermal mass. As for the location of discharge, liquid tends to follow the path of least resistance. What were the locations inside the WTC towers? Who knows the buildings didn't stand long enough for some one to check it out.

Why were the metal flows so close to collapse? (Wouldn't the fuel source be getting a little tired by then?) Was there any correlation between the metal flows and collapse initiation? Well, the photos show the fires were raging around and above the impact areas for quite some time up to the time of collapse. A regular house fire can last for several hours.

To be honest I don't know what the corrolation the melted aluminum had to the collapse initiation. We pretty much know that the temperature did not get hot enough to melt steel but it was certainly enough for aluminum to melt. And there was alot of aluminum from the plane.

Maybe it was coincidence? Perhaps the fact that there was aluminum, sufficient heat, and a path for the metal to flow. Probably nothing at all

NIST says that the pressure pulses, smoke puffs, white glows, metal flows, ejected debris, "steam pipe organ puffs", falling debris, the unusual, fast-changing fires, the hanging objects changing positions in time, and other bizarre phenomena WERE CORRELATED. Please provide a complete model - as I have (NIST hasn't) - to explain ALL of these correlated phenomena (I expect a unified answer).
Heat can do all those things. Pressure pulses, and smoke puffs can be caused by pressurized things exploding in the heat. For instance Fire extinguisers (one blew up at a fire where I used to work. It was loud and explosive. People though it was a bomb), water trapped in the fire supression system cleaning fluids and other similar liquid flamables sealed in containers etc.

You'll have to point me to the fast changing fire example. First time I've heard of it.

Hanging objects chaging position. You mean stuff hanging from the celing outside the damaged area? (please be specific) One stories celing is another floor's floor. And the floors were sagging and falling due to the steel being heated. (Oh and floors that collapse tend to dispalce a lot of air that might eject debris.)
As for the "other bizzare phenomenon" I don't know. You'll have to tell me what they are.


Of course, it would be nice if you could not waste time guessing, but go the proper reports, and support NIST's case, since NIST's case is your case. You mean like how you guessed those tubes were shock tubes and not something else in that picture?

Please make your answers intelligent.

Thanks!

Max

* * *
Your questions are some what ambiguous and too general. If you want specific answers please give specific examples.

Oh, And what Arkan said.

P.S. here's what NIST says about the puffs and flying debris:
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

[uruk]

Gotcha!

I wanted you to say NIST does not say anything about the two tubes.

What led me to conjecture those are thermite-dusted shock-tube is the complex multiplication of all my past experiences, and all of my 911 research.

Thermite-dusted shock-tube is the solution to a long list of observations and constraints.

To put it in terms even you might understand, thermite-dusted shock-tube is the best fit, relative to my research (it may not be relative to yours).

I knew to look for it, as I knew to look for the white flashes in the 2nd hit - north face cropped video.

Read that again.

I KNEW to look in the NIST reports for thermite-dusted shock-tube. I KNEW plausible deniability would require that they clearly show at least one example.

I KNEW to hunt videos for shock-tube ignition flashes.

I KNEW to look for a thermite ignition mechanism that wouldn't require explosives, radio waves, etc.

And guess what I found.


Max

* * *
Wow. Just like Narveson said; conjecture? That's your criteria?

I was hoping you would have said that you had personal experiance with thermite dusted shock tubes. Or that you had a website linking to a company that makes thermite dusted shock tubes and has a catalog showing tubes that look very similar to the tubes in the picture. But this is all you have? What about if your observations are in error?

Dissapointing.

"Looks like" is not necessarily "is".

Also you forgot one thing. Thermite is notoriously hard to ignite. The temperature has to get high enough to start the ignition. About 1200C. Do you know any plastic that can stand that temperature and remain pristine? How about metals?

[uruk]

Oh yea. You never said how you ruled out the other possibilities the tubes may have been. Like conduit or cable.
I mean seeing as you have never seen or handled a thermite dusted shock tube how would you know how one looks like?

[Max Photon]

Oh yea. You never said how you ruled out the other possibilities the tubes may have been. Like conduit or cable.
I mean seeing as you have never seen or handled a thermite dusted shock tube how would you know how one looks like?


Uruk,

It is a simple affair to separate genuine questions from a researcher who is making a serious attempt to understand another's models, from (low-caliber) flak.

If you don't think the grey wires in recovered steel member N8 are thermite-dusted shock-tube, but rather, computer cable, then think that.

Anyway, why ask what I think, or how I arrived at it? You seem to already know.


May I make a suggestion (if you are a serious researcher)...

If one stops fussing and thrashing about, MAX-MIHOP actually describes incredibly simple catalyzed collapse-initiation mechanisms.

I am being dead serious. If one just let's it in, MAX-MIHOP is a stunningly simple picture.


Cheers!

Max

P.S. Discussion of N8 is more appropriate on this thread of mine:

Thermite Was Placed In Box-Columns and Spandrel Splice Gaps to Heat-Weaken WTC Steel
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87336

* * *

Dear Universe, is Apollo20 really the only person in this section of the forum who can actually separate thinking from emotion?

Is Apollo20 the only person who can entertain more than one hypothesis simultaneously, and give each his best shot.

Is Apollo20 the only person who can actually hold the NIST story in his mind well enough to see the distortions in it?


I had no idea multi-valued thinking was such a rare commodity.


Apollo20, whether you agree with MAX-MIHOP or not, I sense you can at least see some of the broad gestures in my painting.

My model - once you can see it - is simpler than the DNA molecule.

* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

uruk,

If you think I am not answering your questions, please give me a little slack.

I am just one guy taking on large herd of angry natives.

Numbering your questions really helps, because then you can say, "Hey Max, can you attend to Post #xxx, question #y."

Not only do I answer questions, I scan for intelligent ones, because my models can be no stronger than the criticisms leveled against them.

So ask away, but they'd better be intelligent.

Cheers!

Max

P.S. Note that Pomeroo doesn't answer questions.

* * *


Note that Max has been caught lying. Pomeroo disposed of Max's disingenuous questions by pointing out that no steel was destroyed. NIST had all the steel it required to complete its tests.

What is the evidence for thermite at the WTC complex, Max? There is none, you know.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Uruk,

Regarding your post #283, it is bizarre watching you shadow box what you imagine MAX-MIHOP to be.

And it is very disturbing having you attribute your confusion to me.

You were all over me like a cheap suit about NIST FAQ 12.

You were flat@ss wrong.

Now you are at it again.

I have only been talking about events PRIOR to collapse initiation, as described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

You lie, and say that I am discussing post-collapse-initiation, and then attack your little straw men from that deluded position.

Again, what the ____ is wrong with you!

STOP YOUR INCESSANT LYING!

It is really creepy.


* * *

[Max Photon]

Note that Max has been caught lying. Pomeroo disposed of Max's disingenuous questions by pointing out that no steel was destroyed. NIST had all the steel it required to complete its tests.

What is the evidence for thermite at the WTC complex, Max? There is none, you know.


* * *

Pomeroo claims NO WTC steel was destroyed.


Pomeroo accuses Max Photon of lying

because Max said WTC steel was destroyed.


Pomeroo, where is the WTC steel?

* * *

[pomeroo]

Gotcha!

I wanted you to say NIST does not say anything about the two tubes.

What led me to conjecture those are thermite-dusted shock-tube is the complex multiplication of all my past experiences, and all of my 911 research.



Hmmm, let's see. Your past experiences are those of a guy who dropped out of school and did far too many drugs. You haven't done any 9/11 research.




Thermite-dusted shock-tube is the solution to a long list of observations and constraints.

To put it in terms even you might understand, thermite-dusted shock-tube is the best fit, relative to my research (it may not be relative to yours).


Again, how does being a guy of barely average intelligence who has a serious drug problem equip you to make scientific observations?



I knew to look for it, as I knew to look for the white flashes in the 2nd hit - north face cropped video.

Read that again.


Okay, I've read it a few times. A not-very-bright guy who lives in a fantasy world misinterprets white flashes. Why should we care?




I KNEW to look in the NIST reports for thermite-dusted shock-tube. I KNEW plausible deniability would require that they clearly show at least one example.

I KNEW to hunt videos for shock-tube ignition flashes.

I KNEW to look for a thermite ignition mechanism that wouldn't require explosives, radio waves, etc.


Why do real scientists regard you as an ignoramus and a joke?



And guess what I found.


Max

* * *


No need to guess. You found absolutely nothing.

You've been exposed, Max. The game is over.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Gentle readers,

Ask yourself, if Pomeroo is genuine that Max Photon and MAX-MIHOP have zero value, why is he investing so much energy?

Max

P.S. Pomeroo, where is the WTC steel?

* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

Pomeroo claims NO WTC steel was destroyed.


Pomeroo accuses Max Photon of lying

because Max said WTC steel was destroyed.


Pomeroo, where is the WTC steel?

* * *



You know something, Max, if you manage to shout louder, you'll still be a liar and an ignoramus. You've been exposed as an agenda-driven know-nothing.

The steel, as has been pointed out to you many, many times (you did check the link I provided?), was recycled and shipped overseas. It lay around for months, however--AS YOU KNOW.

There was no evidence of thermite at WTC complex. You've been caught lying.

It's over, Max.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Now Pomeroo is saying WTC steel WAS destroyed!


* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

Gentle readers,

Ask yourself, if Pomeroo is genuine that Max Photon and MAX-MIHOP have zero value, why is he investing so much energy?


Disposing of a pretentious featherweight like yourself requires very little energy. But I enjoy exposing frauds who promote evil causes.



Max

P.S. Pomeroo, where is the WTC steel?

* * *


Well, some of us are, I suppose, delighting in your death throes. Others might find the spectacle of you wriggling on the hook distasteful. I can spare you the embarrassment of asking the same desperate question that has been driven down your throat over and over. The next time your compulsion overpowers you, type the mindless question and then simply add the inevitable response: The steel has been recycled and shipped overseas. NIST had as much steel as it required. No "evidence" was destroyed.

You can continue to drag out your painfully slow self-immolation, but there is no hope, no possibility of escape for you. The result is in.

You have been exposed.

[pomeroo]

* * *

Now Pomeroo is saying WTC steel WAS destroyed!


* * *


Gee, Max, I like winning as much as the next guy, but this is undignified. Take your beating like a man.

[Max Photon]

Disposing of a pretentious featherweight like yourself requires very little energy. But I enjoy exposing frauds who promote evil causes.

Well, some of us are, I suppose, delighting in your death throes. Others might find the spectacle of you wriggling on the hook distasteful. I can spare you the embarrassment of asking the same desperate question that has been driven down your throat over and over. The next time your compulsion overpowers you, type the mindless question and then simply add the inevitable response: The steel has been recycled and shipped overseas. NIST had as much steel as it required. No "evidence" was destroyed.

You can continue to drag out your painfully slow self-immolation, but there is no hope, no possibility of escape for you. The result is in.

You have been exposed.



Gentle readers,


General Maxwell C. Photon, Commander of the Fourth Infantile Division, is a total idiot.

I just looked at the thread, "What is Your 911 Experitise," and I just learned that Pomeroo is...(Photon you chump)...a talk show host.

I have been arguing with a talk show host.

And I have a talk show host calling me an non-scientist.


I was wondering how anyone with even a thimble-full of science in his background - even if it just came from reading the nutrition label on a box of Captain Crunch as a child - could argue:


That NIST had all the steel it needed, when NIST collected and studies ZERO fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2;

That no WTC steel - evidence - was destroyed, even though it was sent to recyclers and - well - destroyed.

How all the evidence stops becoming evidence just because a sample was looked at once, or because a little time has passed.


Well know I know.

Pomeroo is nothing but a talk show host.


Max Shaking-His-Head-At-The-Good-One-Played-On-Him-By-The-Universe Photon

P.S. Readers should note that Pomeroo's incessant accusations that Max Photon has a substance abuse problem might be telling them something - that our talk show host - Pomeroooooooo - probably has a substance abuse problem. (You know, psychological projection and all...or, maybe more at Pomeroo's level - the smeller is the feller.)

P.P.S. Thanks for taking the time to make the list, TAM. (Wish I had looked earlier.)


Talk show host...that's hilarious...

[DavidJames]

And I have a talk show host calling me an non-scientist.This is my one and only comment to you...

Ron's comments are appropriate. You don't present data like a scientist. You don't perform analysis like a scientist. In other words, you don't act like a scientist.

Instead, you act like a garden variety CTist.

[Max Photon]

This is my one and only comment to you...

Ron's comments are appropriate. You don't present data like a scientist. You don't perform analysis like a scientist. In other words, you don't act like a scientist.

Instead, you act like a garden variety CTist.


Carrots help your vision.


Max

[uruk]

Uruk,

It is a simple affair to separate genuine questions from a researcher who is making a serious attempt to understand another's models, from (low-caliber) flak.

If you don't think the grey wires in recovered steel member N8 are thermite-dusted shock-tube, but rather, computer cable, then think that.

Anyway, why ask what I think, or how I arrived at it? You seem to already know.


May I make a suggestion (if you are a serious researcher)...

If one stops fussing and thrashing about, MAX-MIHOP actually describes incredibly simple catalyzed collapse-initiation mechanisms.

I am being dead serious. If one just let's it in, MAX-MIHOP is a stunningly simple picture.


Cheers!

Max

P.S. Discussion of N8 is more appropriate on this thread of mine:

Thermite Was Placed In Box-Columns and Spandrel Splice Gaps to Heat-Weaken WTC Steel
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87336

* * *

Dear Universe, is Apollo20 really the only person in this section of the forum who can actually separate thinking from emotion?

Is Apollo20 the only person who can entertain more than one hypothesis simultaneously, and give each his best shot.

Is Apollo20 the only person who can actually hold the NIST story in his mind well enough to see the distortions in it?


I had no idea multi-valued thinking was such a rare commodity.


Apollo20, whether you agree with MAX-MIHOP or not, I sense you can at least see some of the broad gestures in my painting.

My model - once you can see it - is simpler than the DNA molecule.

* * *

I know that you have a nice hypothesis that you feel fits your observations.
Nothing wrong with that. The problem is how do you know your hypothesis stands up to the test. Does it accurately reflect reality.

A serious researcher tests his hypothesis. He tests to make sure that his premesis and conclusions are valid or cogent. He test to see if his hypothesis matches reality as much as possible.
The assumption here in this forum is that when you present your ideas here you wish for them to be tested.

There are people here who get exasperated quickly and become short. That is because they've had long experiance with the dishonest and the self-dilluded. (I'm not saying that you are either one) And they've had to hear and deal with just about every conspiracy theory out there so they've become impatient.

Your Thermite hypothesis does have a unique twist to but it has some serious flaws in it based on some assumptions you've made. The tubes is just one weak area in your hypothesis. (There is a couple of others concerning the thermite that I'll be happy to tell you if you are interested)
My assumption was that you wanted your hypothesis tested. If I'm wrong, then sorry.

The reason that so many here refer to the NIST is that actual scientists and engineers researched the event. They had total access to the evidence and reconstructions. They performed experiments to test thier hypothesis.

Unfortunately the only evidence that Conspiracy theorist have to use is video and pictures. Which leaves them only to conjecture. Pictures and video alone is insufficent. They only offer a very narrow view of the events. And most conspiracy thoerists do not have the money to properly perform experiments.

I do know that the NIST report more than likely contains errors in it. There are things that we will never know for sure about the events on 9/11 because the buildings fell. Some of the questions you asked me could have been definitively answered had the building remained standing.
But NIST is the best explination available that has actual scientific research to back it up.

Science and the laws of physics can close up some of the gaps.

Of course you could say the NIST is tainted by government conspiracy or that it is a tool for cover up, but then to be taken seriously you to be able to prove that assumption.

Simply coming up with an alternative explination for the observed events is insufficient.
But your explination has to stand up to the test of scrutiny.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Uruk,

I appreciate the spirit of you thoughtful post.

However, you are missing a point.

My model is being tested by all who read it.

The test will be in whether the model becomes more accepted over time.

Please be realistic. There is nothing to "prove" to resistant people.

People make up there own minds.


Let me frame things differently.

Let's say you were a scientist who felt it was important to keep at least the best two hypotheses front and center (as being a one-hypothesis scientist is not being much of a scientist).

I assume the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis, as found in the NIST reports, would be your first pick.

Which hypothesis is your second?

Max

(Author of your second.)

* * *

[uruk]

* * *

Uruk,

Regarding your post #283, it is bizarre watching you shadow box what you imagine MAX-MIHOP to be.

And it is very disturbing having you attribute your confusion to me.

You were all over me like a cheap suit about NIST FAQ 12.

You were flat@ss wrong.

Now you are at it again.

I have only been talking about events PRIOR to collapse initiation, as described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

You lie, and say that I am discussing post-collapse-initiation, and then attack your little straw men from that deluded position.

Again, what the ____ is wrong with you!

STOP YOUR INCESSANT LYING!

It is really creepy.


* * *
I don't remember saying that you were discussing post-collapse- initiation events. Can you show me where I said that?

If I am not mistaken post #283 was in refrence to questions you posed to me in post #278.
I answered them to best of my knowledge.

You asked me those questions, I answered.

I appologise if I missunderstood your intentions. Maybe if your questions were more specific.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Gentle readers,


General Maxwell C. Photon, Commander of the Fourth Infantile Division, is a total idiot.

I just looked at the thread, "What is Your 911 Experitise," and I just learned that Pomeroo is...(Photon you chump)...a talk show host.

I have been arguing with a talk show host.

And I have a talk show host calling me an non-scientist.


I was wondering how anyone with even a thimble-full of science in his background - even if it just came from reading the nutrition label on a box of Captain Crunch as a child - could argue:

That NIST had all the steel it needed, when NIST collected and studies ZERO fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2;
That no WTC steel - evidence - was destroyed, even though it was sent to recyclers and - well - destroyed.
How all the evidence stops becoming evidence just because a sample was looked at once, or because a little time has passed.Well know I know.

Pomeroo is nothing but a talk show host.


Max Shaking-His-Head-At-The-Good-One-Played-On-Him-By-The-Universe Photon

P.S. Readers should note that Pomeroo's incessant accusations that Max Photon has a substance abuse problem might be telling them something - that our talk show host - Pomeroooooooo - probably has a substance abuse problem. (You know, psychological projection and all...or, maybe more at Pomeroo's level - the smeller is the feller.)

P.P.S. Thanks for taking the time to make the list, TAM. (Wish I had looked earlier.)


Talk show host...that's hilarious...
Congratulations! That is, by far, one of the longest single examples of an ad hominem logical fallacy I've seen presented in this sub-forum as of yet.

[uruk]

* * *

Uruk,

I appreciate the spirit of you thoughtful post.

However, you are missing a point.

My model is being tested by all who read it.

The test will be in whether the model becomes more accepted over time.
I'm sorry,maybe it's my limited thinking abilities, but how does that count as a test?

A hypothesis, or model as you put it, becomes accepted over time by how well it stands up to scrutiny and questioning, not just by how many people accept it.

That's a fallacy of ad populum. The more people who believe a model does not make it a true or accurate model.
There was a time where people believed the world was flat. The people's belief does not make it so.

Please be realistic. There is nothing to "prove" to resistant people.

People make up there own minds. True, But if you ask someone to accept something that can be tested or proven it goes along way for the model to be accepted.
See if you tell people that something is "like so", thier natural response will be "why or how".

Just like if I were to say "The world is round". Your natural response would be to ask me why i believed that the world is round. I could give any expliantion I wanted, but an explination where I had evidence and proof and an experiment that other people could run that produced results that supported my assertion would be even better.

That is called peer review. That is what helps an idea or model to become accepted.
If you are a scientist you would know this already.


Let me frame things differently.

Let's say you were a scientist who felt it was important to keep at least the best two hypotheses front and center (as being a one-hypothesis scientist is not being much of a scientist). I'm sure any scientists would be open to any and all possibilities but if one of the hypothesis is showing to be truer or more accurate by evidence than the other hypothesis, the scientist would abondon the weaker hypothesis for stronger one.
Science does it all the time. (Find out why physicists have abandoned the Bohr model of the atom.)
This called the crucible. where you burn away all other possible explinations for the one that is most accurate.
That doesn't mean that the other weaker hypothesis may not become the stronger one later on if some piece of evidence is discovered later on that puts it into the forefront.
But you have to go with what is best for the moment.

I assume the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis, as found in the NIST reports, would be your first pick.

Which hypothesis is your second?

Max

(Author of your second.)

* * *
Yes I would say that the official theory is the one I subscribe to because I find it to be stronger than the alternate conspiracy thoeries. Now if I were to find an alternate conspiracy theory that had stroner evidence than NIST I would then abandon the weaker theory for the stronger one. But so far nothing has presented itself.

That's what I was doing to your hypothesis. I was testing to see if it would hold up against the theory I subscribe to. To see if it was stronger. That's why I was asking you questions, to see your evidence, to see what was the path and method you used to come to your conclusions.
I'm sorry to say that so far I haven't seen anything in your hypothesis that would lead me to abandon what I hold presently.

[Max Photon]

* * *

uruk,

I am impressed you can judge that which you have repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand.

Anyway, I asked you what your second best hypothesis was (regardless of how distant second it is).

Max

ETA: uruk, perhaps we could move our discussion to my other thread, since we are discussing shock-tube, N8, etc. Thanks.

Thermite Was Placed In Box-Columns and Spandrel Splice Gaps to Heat-Weaken WTC Steel
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87336

[uruk]

* * *

uruk,

I am impressed you can judge that which you have repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand. You claim thermite was used to heat weaken the connection points in the steel columns and outer wall sections triggered by a thermite dusted shock tube system. What's there not to understand? All the other things about "hiding in plain site", "plausible deniability", etc., is really secondary to your thermite claim. (well as far as the WTC collapse is concerned). I found it weak because of how you arrived to your conclusion. one piece of evidence you had (the shock tube picture) basicly came down to an assunpmtion based on other assumptions. A house of cards if you will.

Anyway, I asked you what your second best hypothesis was (regardless of how distant second it is).

Max My first hypothesis was the pancake theory of collpasing floors. At the time, before any of the studies were done, it seemed like a very plausible hypothesis. It was later found out to be in error.
As far as the initiation of collapse is concerned, it seemed pretty obvious. Plane impacts at full speed, impact damage, heat, steel, wieght, momentum. It all added up.

I had no reason to suspect a governmental conspiracy.

When the first plane crashed I though it was an accident. Planes have crashed into building before. When the second plane hit I knew it was an attack of somesort. More than likely terrorists because of the nature of the attack. Something simple and relativly cheap.

I'm not saying that there maybe no possibilty of a govt. conspiracy but I have never known the government to carry out something of this magnitude on our own soil. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. But there is always a first time for everything.

ETA: uruk, perhaps we could move our discussion to my other thread, since we are discussing shock-tube, N8, etc. Thanks.

Thermite Was Placed In Box-Columns and Spandrel Splice Gaps to Heat-Weaken WTC Steel
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87336
If you want, but you told me everything I needed to know about how you arrived to your conclusion as far as the picture is concerned.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Uruk,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

But you still have not answer a question - a very simple, direct question - that I have asked repeatedly.

I'll try another font, and maybe change the words a little.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uruk, what is your second best model or explanation of

what initiated the collapse of the World Trade Centers,

regardless of how merit-less you find your second pick relative to your first?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a very simple question.

Your answer can even be - like - two words.

Your patiently waiting friend,

Max

* * *

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

* * *

Uruk,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

But you still have not answer a question - a very simple, direct question - that I have asked repeatedly.

I'll try another font, and maybe change the words a little.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uruk, what is your second best model or explanation of

what initiated the collapse of the World Trade Centers,

regardless of how merit-less you find your second pick relative to your first?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a very simple question.

Your answer can even be - like - two words.

Your patiently waiting friend,

Max

* * *
Here's two words that are most relevant to your question:
shiftingthe burdenofproof.

[uruk]

* * *

Uruk,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

But you still have not answer a question - a very simple, direct question - that I have asked repeatedly.

I'll try another font, and maybe change the words a little.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uruk, what is your second best model or explanation of

what initiated the collapse of the World Trade Centers,

regardless of how merit-less you find your second pick relative to your first?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a very simple question.

Your answer can even be - like - two words.

Your patiently waiting friend,

Max

* * *
At this point none.

What NIST describes is more plausible than any other I've heard. It has the most evidence I've seen.

Why is having a back up or second hypothesis necessary? Isn't being open to other possibilities enough?

I've heard of other alternate explinations such as explosives, Controlled demolition, thermite, Directed energy weapons, nuclear weapons, missiles, holograms. But all those alternate hypothesis have serious flaws in them. That is why I rejected them.

NIST's description has far fewer flaws. That's why I accepted it. I am open to alternate explinations if they have merit. If they can stand up to scrutiny.


Seeing as I've answered your question, what is your second best hypothesis? NIST? CD?

Why do you promote your particular explination over your second best hypothesis?

Do you devote any time to thinking about your second best hypothesis?

[Max Photon]

* * *

Passing the hot gases through the Max Photon-brand Evasion Detection and Translation Matrix, we get:

--------

Max, I don't want to answer, because if I do - honestly - then I'd have to admit - in front of a herd of JREF NISTIANS - that MAX-MIHOP is, in fact, the number two hypothesis in the world, and the best CD hypothesis by a country mile.

Oh, and Max, that darn thermite-dusted shock-tube idea is clever indeed.

Especially when you read up on N8 and the silly little 2-kiloton plastic notebook.

--------


Never mind.

But don't ever accuse me of not answering your questions.

Max


* * *

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

* * *

Passing the hot gases through the Max Photon-brand Evasion Detection and Translation Matrix, we get:

--------

Max, I don't want to answer, because if I do - honestly - then I'd have to admit - in front of a herd of JREF NISTIANS - that MAX-MIHOP is, in fact, the number two hypothesis in the world, and the best CD hypothesis by a country mile.

Oh, and Max, that darn thermite-dusted shock-tube idea is clever indeed.

Especially when you read up on N8 and the silly little 2-kiloton plastic notebook.

--------


Never mind.

But don't ever accuse me of not answering your questions.

Max


* * *
Are you this intellectually dishonest in all of your life's activities?

[uruk]

* * *

Passing the hot gases through the Max Photon-brand Evasion Detection and Translation Matrix, we get:

--------

Max, I don't want to answer, because if I do - honestly - then I'd have to admit - in front of a herd of JREF NISTIANS - that MAX-MIHOP is, in fact, the number two hypothesis in the world, and the best CD hypothesis by a country mile.

Oh, and Max, that darn thermite-dusted shock-tube idea is clever indeed.

Especially when you read up on N8 and the silly little 2-kiloton plastic notebook.

--------


Never mind.

But don't ever accuse me of not answering your questions.

Max


* * *

Woa. Are you ok? Did you miss the part where I just said that I did not have a "second best" hypothesis.

And you never told me what your "second best" hypothesis is.

[Max Photon]

Woa. Are you ok? Did you miss the part where I just said that I did not have a "second best" hypothesis.

And you never told me what your "second best" hypothesis is.


Sorry dude, I didn't mean to stump you.

I didn't think it was that tough of a question.


Here is what I come up with (ranked):


MAX-MIHOP - Thermite was used to: create a phreato-thermatic explosion, dust shock-tube, heat-weaken WTC steel connections, and break or rupture core column weld planes;
NIST - 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis / jets + uncatalyzed fires = collapse initiation;
Apollo20 - Ammonium perchlorate to heat-weaken WTC steel;
MColombo - Conventional high-explosives (or some explosive force) to break core column weld planes.


Out of the running (not ranked):


Jones - Thermite was used to cut/melt/slice WTC steel
Jones - High-explosive linear-shaped charges
Wood - Directed energy weapons
XXX - Mini-nukes
Brown - C4 coated rebar / concrete core / built to demolish



Quite a cr@pfest.

Max

Dept. of Insanitation

* * *

[e^n]

Actually, I gave you a substantial response that described my process.

It will take as many joules for me to find it as for you.

So you did, I had searched for it before but "e^n" is quite hard to search for as my name is too short :(

The original post is located here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2784349&postcount=22

I am truly sorry it has taken me so long to address this, there are always so many issues on the go at once it's hard to remember what I have missed!

The NIST report basically says: NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
...
Okay, so the hypothesis H = NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
...
H = NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
then I would test the null hypothesis:
H(null) = CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
This is not correct, a hypothesis is strictly speaking a testable prediction of the outcome of a process. A hypothesis cannot simply be "NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION" or the opposite, nor is this a good characterisation of NISTs hypothesis.

A better characterisation would be
H=Natural collapse caused by structural and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact and subsequent fires.

This is still far too generic to be considered a testable hypothesis via the mechanisms you suggest, to fit in with your theory the best I can do is
H=Perimeter column failure due to asymmetric loading and inward forces caused by sagging trusses
H(null)=Perimeter column failure due to asymmetric loading, thermite induced weakening and inward forces caused by sagging trusses.

I am not entirely sure which parts you support so I don't know if the null hypothesis I have presented does fit your theory, however it is very clearly extremely hard if not impossible to test. This is the issue I take with your overall hypothesis, you have predicated it on controlled demolition existing which is not something which can be disproven (proving a negative).

Essentially the only reason your theory is not compatible with the 'official story' seems to be that you require controlled demolition by the very basis of your investigation. Your supporting evidence to this hypothesis also relies on a presupposition of controlled demolition as things such as the bright fire in the corner of WTC2 and the incandescent debris pouring from the corner can be explained by thoroughly 'natural' mechanisms without issue.

I am interested to hear your reply as to whether you believe 'CONTROLLED DEMOLITION' is a testable hypothesis, but I will also address the rest of your post:

Gentle readers, e^n is known in physics as a resistor. He is an energy sink.
It's true, I do convert small amounts of electricity into heat!

Now e^n, can you please explain the spoliation?
I will assume you're referring to this? http://app.quickblogcast.com/images/81199-71081/Figure_6_4.jpg

It was most likely a binder, the black material is plastic. This is NISTs conclusion anyway. I assume you're claiming that thermite was ignited here? If so how do you explain that NIST found 'spider-web' paint cracks on the truss seat? Do you expect thermite not to remove the paint or did it simply not heat the steel enough to cause the paint to become disconnected?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase it.
Your theory contains two elements, pre-planted thermite to heat weaken certain elements and pre-planted iron oxide generators in order to increase the damage / visibility of the external fireball. If this is not correct I apologise.

My question is then, what evidence convinced you that there must have been rust generators placed inside the towers instead of simply just pre-planted thermite to weaken the steel?

Thanks in advance :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Quite a cr@pfest.

Max

Dept. of Insanitation

* * *
Yes, your posts have turned out to be that.

[Max Photon]

* * *

e^n,


I'd like to retract that description of my process if you don't mind.

Highly complex processes are their own shortest description.

How I arrived at MAX-MIHOP does not map onto those few sentences very well, so then arguing about them does not seem like highest-and-best use of time.

(I am not saying your questions are not valid or interesting...they are.)


Next topic...

MAX-MIHOP - a particular mode of CD - is easily tested.

Just examine the fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2. Simple.


Now, spoliation means destruction of evidence.

The spoliation was designed exactly to destroy the primary mode of testing of MAX-MIHOP.

Surely, e^n, you are intellectually honest enough to agree that my model would have been simple to test, had the evidence not been destroyed.

How all you JREF NISTIANS can discount to zero the destruction of evidence from such a horrendous crime, is absurd. Absolutely absurd.

And the claim that there was not enough space, is also absurd.

The US Government could have made space.

After Pearl Harbor, the Government made space for "Japanese prisoners."


To repeat:

MAX-MIHOP would have been easy to test, had evidence not been destroyed.

e^n, do you agree with that sentence?


As for N8, the thermite was not planted on the truss seat, but in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two top chords are juxtaposed.

The amount of thermite was small, and wrapped in paper and black plastic.

(The black plastic helped to mask the white aluminum oxide ash.)

The thermite heated the top chord (near the seat) the most.

The truss seat was heated less.

The spandrel (at the seat) less still.

So the amount of heating at the seat was only enough to spiderweb the paint. (The top chord may have experienced spheroidization of pearlite.)


As to your question as to why the need for the phreato-thermatic explosion?

(By the way, your characterization was excellent.)

There are a lot of strange and (to me) poorly-explained phenomena well-described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

The Cold Spot is a biggie.

There are other indicators: the stories of WTC2 UPS generators, the complexity of the fireball, and so on.

Plus, there is a lot of "noise": NIST puts a lot of energy into dislodged SFRM.

So the phreato-thermatic explosion is the rather visionary resolution of all the "errors".

Again, how I arrived at the notion was (is) a complex process, a process that may be its own shortest description.


e^n, you are asking fair, intelligent questions, and I really appreciate it.

So by all means, feel free to ask more.

I'm fading, so forgive me if this post has errors.

Cheers!

Max

P.S. Don't forget to answer my question!

* * *

[pomeroo]

Gentle readers,


General Maxwell C. Photon, Commander of the Fourth Infantile Division, is a total idiot.

I just looked at the thread, "What is Your 911 Experitise," and I just learned that Pomeroo is...(Photon you chump)...a talk show host.


If I were you, Max, I'd demand a refund. It's not the NWO's most heavily guarded secret that I occasionally host 'Hardfire,' a cable access show with a tiny audience. That you have just made this discovery tells us, come to think of it, exactly what we already know about your research skills.




I have been arguing with a talk show host.

And I have a talk show host calling me an non-scientist.


See, here's the difference between us in a nutshell: I wouldn't dream of calling myself a talk-show host, but I am much more a talk-show host than you are a scientist.




I was wondering how anyone with even a thimble-full of science in his background - even if it just came from reading the nutrition label on a box of Captain Crunch as a child - could argue:

That NIST had all the steel it needed, when NIST collected and studies ZERO fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2;
That no WTC steel - evidence - was destroyed, even though it was sent to recyclers and - well - destroyed.
How all the evidence stops becoming evidence just because a sample was looked at once, or because a little time has passed.Wonder no more--your questions are all disingenuous. It is, of course, not my claim that NIST had all the steel it needed--it's NIST's claim. Your desperate wriggling has been noted. And, I repeat, there is no escape for you.

No WTC steel was destroyed. It lay around for months and was eventually shipped overseas. Only conspiracy liars think that any "evidence" was lost.
The agencies who examined the steel did so to determine why the buildings fell. Unlike you and your fellow frauds, they were interested in finding out the truth.

Evidence for what, Max? How about the nonexistent evidence of thermite at the WTC complex? A bit inconvenient for your fantasy, no?



Well know I know.

Pomeroo is nothing but a talk show host.


Actually, pomeroo is much more than a talk show host.

Max is much less than a scientist.


Max Shaking-His-Head-At-The-Good-One-Played-On-Him-By-The-Universe Photon


Max ain't seen nuthin' yet.




P.S. Readers should note that Pomeroo's incessant accusations that Max Photon has a substance abuse problem might be telling them something - that our talk show host - Pomeroooooooo - probably has a substance abuse problem. (You know, psychological projection and all...or, maybe more at Pomeroo's level - the smeller is the feller.)

P.P.S. Thanks for taking the time to make the list, TAM. (Wish I had looked earlier.)


Talk show host...that's hilarious...


Pomeroo can't think of anything less interesting than Max's personal life. Max writes like an acid-dropping flower-child, so pomeroo unfairly (?) insinuated that Max really does drop acid. For the record, I don't have the slightest idea if it's true or not.


Max--a scientist?!?! Now, that's hilarious.

[pomeroo]

* * *

e^n,


I'd like to retract that description of my process if you don't mind.

Highly complex processes are their own shortest description.

How I arrived at MAX-MIHOP does not map onto those few sentences very well, so then arguing about them does not seem like highest-and-best use of time.

(I am not saying your questions are not valid or interesting...they are.)


Next topic...

MAX-MIHOP - a particular mode of CD - is easily tested.

Just examine the fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2. Simple.


Now, spoliation means destruction of evidence.

The spoliation was designed exactly to destroy the primary mode of testing of MAX-MIHOP.

Surely, e^n, you are intellectually honest enough to agree that my model would have been simple to test, had the evidence not been destroyed.

How all you JREF NISTIANS can discount to zero the destruction of evidence from such a horrendous crime, is absurd. Absolutely absurd.

And the claim that there was not enough space, is also absurd.

The US Government could have made space.

After Pearl Harbor, the Government made space for "Japanese prisoners."


To repeat:

MAX-MIHOP would have been easy to test, had evidence not been destroyed.

e^n, do you agree with that sentence?


As for N8, the thermite was not planted on the truss seat, but in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two top chords are juxtaposed.

The amount of thermite was small, and wrapped in paper and black plastic.

(The black plastic helped to mask the white aluminum oxide ash.)

The thermite heated the top chord (near the seat) the most.

The truss seat was heated less.

The spandrel (at the seat) less still.

So the amount of heating at the seat was only enough to spiderweb the paint. (The top chord may have experienced spheroidization of pearlite.)


As to your question as to why the need for the phreato-thermatic explosion?

(By the way, your characterization was excellent.)

There are a lot of strange and (to me) poorly-explained phenomena well-described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

The Cold Spot is a biggie.

There are other indicators: the stories of WTC2 UPS generators, the complexity of the fireball, and so on.

Plus, there is a lot of "noise": NIST puts a lot of energy into dislodged SFRM.

So the phreato-thermatic explosion is the rather visionary resolution of all the "errors".

Again, how I arrived at the notion was (is) a complex process, a process that may be its own shortest description.


e^n, you are asking fair, intelligent questions, and I really appreciate it.

So by all means, feel free to ask more.

I'm fading, so forgive me if this post has errors.

Cheers!

Max

P.S. Don't forget to answer my question!

* * *


Yes, Max, your post has many errors. The biggest is your false claim that thermite was used at the Twin Towers. No evidence supports your fabrication.

[Max Photon]

Yes, Max, your post has many errors. The biggest is your false claim that thermite was used at the Twin Towers. No evidence supports your fabrication.


Thanks Oprah.

[pomeroo]

Thanks Oprah.



Good heavens! You actually do have evidence for your thermite fantasy! And here we all thought you were a complete charlatan.

[e^n]

I'd like to retract that description of my process if you don't mind.
Highly complex processes are their own shortest description.
How I arrived at MAX-MIHOP does not map onto those few sentences very well, so then arguing about them does not seem like highest-and-best use of time.
Your retraction is noted, however I do not accept that this is not an efficient use of time. Your theory (to me at least) seems to be the product of fitting all the evidence to an immutable predetermined conclusion, that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I will elaborate on why I feel this is the most productive route further down the post.

Surely, e^n, you are intellectually honest enough to agree that my model would have been simple to test, had the evidence not been destroyed.
While I don't accept that evidence was destroyed incorrectly (the amount of work done at Fresh Kills is beyond comparison) I do agree that given adequate work your theory (at least the heat weakening of steel) could have been accomplished without the steel being damaged oddly enough to warrant NIST or FEMA etc marking it to be saved. This is not to say it was and I will get to that in a second. If so, a more thorough analysis may have uncovered evidence to support your theory, however this is also flawed as I will demonstrate:

As for N8, the thermite was not planted on the truss seat, but in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two top chords are juxtaposed.
Let us forget for a moment the logistical difficulties of such placement, this still seems to be literally on the truss seat?

http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot4.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot4.png)http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot5.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot5.png)

Thermite (as you know) burns at extremely high temperatures, I have seen 2500C quoted but the precise magnitude is irrelevant, there are many many problems with your characterisation of this panel. Let us presume for the moment that no molten iron actually dripped onto the truss seat.

The amount of thermite was small, and wrapped in paper and black plastic.

(The black plastic helped to mask the white aluminum oxide ash.)
I find it very hard to believe you've not just made this up, NIST quite clearly states in their characterisation of this panel that the binder most likely melted when the perimeter panel was horizontal, IE post-collapse. How else do you explain the drip pattern on the underside?
In viewing the seat, it appears that a plastic note paper binder (based upon melted black plastic with imbedded papers) settled and melted on the seat. According to the drip pattern of the
binder (Fig. 6–4b), it appears that the panel was in a horizontal position when this occurred. Mud cracking was not observed on the spandrel plate to which the seat was welded.

edit: I had forgotten to write a section on temperatures attained!

As we know the truss seat and offset plates were tested for spider-web paint cracking. This type of cracking indicates a temperature attained of between 250c and 650c. The panel and seat in question shows evidence of being exposed to the upper range of that temperature for a reasonable period but as you can clearly see from the fire timeline it was exposed to fire for a reasonable period. It of course shows no signs of being exposed to anywhere near the temperature of thermite or molten iron. I find it hard to believe that even if the thermite somehow did not drip onto this section temperatures would remain so low barely inches from such a heat source.

I also believe even your 'shock tube' theory is in serious doubt, indeed this appears to be a grounding wire as with some trivial investigation it turns out the 99th floor section of column 142 was photographed:
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot6.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot6.png)

Your 'shock tube' appears to be screwed into the spandrel panel between columns 142 and 143. Why on earth would this be the case?

Frankly Max your theory bears all the hallmarks of someone who has simply thought up what they personally believe to be most plausible without doing the requisite research behind it. You have said before
e^n, the problem is, one needs to have a pretty high degree of familiarity with the evidence, and of MAX-MIHOP, to see MAX-MIHOP and to gage its fit to the observations.

Well I put it to you Max that my familiarity with the evidence seems to be higher than yours, and that in fact the evidence doesn't support this particular section being damaged by thermite at all. Not to mention that this perimeter panel is located on the opposite side to where the building failed and doesn't appear to play any role whatsoever in the collapse:
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot7.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot7.png)

When a theory involves only supposition and incidental characteristics and provides no firm logical basis for testing nor an easily understandable history of derivation the most likely assumption is it is based on an incorrect premise. This is my summation of your theory Max. It's not meant to be offensive or insult you as a person, but I fail to see any redeeming value to MAX-MIHOP. To me, it seems like you just invented it because you believe in controlled demolition but couldn't resolve it with the NIST report.

If this is not the case I welcome you to keep presenting evidence, but I suggest in future you provide a more rigorous basis for your assumptions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks Oprah.
Ad hominem logical fallacy. pomeroo's occupation has no bearing on the arguments he puts forth in his post.

[e^n]

Ad hominem logical fallacy. pomeroo's occupation has no bearing on the arguments he puts forth in his post.

Arkan, as keeper of the fallacies could you look over my posts in reply to Max and vet them for stupidity please? Thanks :)

[Max Photon]

[snip] pomeroo's occupation has no bearing on the arguments he puts forth in his post.



Amen to that.




(Nothing does.)

* * *

[Max Photon]

Your retraction is noted, however I do not accept that this is not an efficient use of time. Your theory (to me at least) seems to be the product of fitting all the evidence to an immutable predetermined conclusion, that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I will elaborate on why I feel this is the most productive route further down the post.


I did not say it wasn't an efficient use of time. I said it wasn't the highest-and-best-use of time.


While I don't accept that evidence was destroyed incorrectly


Well at least you're smarter than Oprah, and can admit that evidence WAS destroyed[/quote]


(the amount of work done at Fresh Kills is beyond comparison)


Good grief, it's not like they built the Great Wall of China.


I do agree that given adequate work your theory (at least the heat weakening of steel) could have been accomplished without the steel being damaged oddly enough to warrant NIST or FEMA etc marking it to be saved.


e^n, since they COULD have missed something the first time through, wasn't it a clear case of spoliation?

In ALL other crime scenes, isn't evidence preserved exactly because new information, perspectives, etc., might come to the fore, making seemingly information-free evidence suddenly extremely valuable? (For God's sake, please say yes.)


This is not to say it was and I will get to that in a second. If so, a more thorough analysis may have uncovered evidence to support your theory, however this is also flawed as I will demonstrate:



Let us forget for a moment the logistical difficulties of such placement


No need to forget them, because it was not difficult - the thermite was simply placed in the little rectangular tube that forms where two top chords are juxtaposed (as they sit in the truss seat).

this still seems to be literally on the truss seat?


That paper and plastic caught on the truss seat does not mean the thermite was on the truss seat.



http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot4.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot4.png)http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot5.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot5.png)



Thermite (as you know) burns at extremely high temperatures, I have seen 2500C quoted but the precise magnitude is irrelevant, there are many many problems with your characterisation of this panel. Let us presume for the moment that no molten iron actually dripped onto the truss seat.


I find it very hard to believe you've not just made this up


Of course I'm making it up! That's why I call it MAX-MIHOP. (Is that confusing?)

NIST quite clearly states in their characterisation of this panel that the binder most likely melted when the perimeter panel was horizontal, IE post-collapse. How else do you explain the drip pattern on the underside?


I think you are regressing to an earlier time in your life e^n.

Surely you know that if you have horizontal surface, and pour a liquid on it such that the liquid runs off the edges of the horizontal surface, that surface tension can cause some fingers of liquid to run on the underside of the surface.


edit: I had forgotten to write a section on temperatures attained!

As we know the truss seat and offset plates were tested for spider-web paint cracking. This type of cracking indicates a temperature attained of between 250c and 650c. The panel and seat in question shows evidence of being exposed to the upper range of that temperature for a reasonable period but as you can clearly see from the fire timeline it was exposed to fire for a reasonable period. It of course shows no signs of being exposed to anywhere near the temperature of thermite or molten iron. I find it hard to believe that even if the thermite somehow did not drip onto this section temperatures would remain so low barely inches from such a heat source.


Wow, everyone seems so lost about temperature, heat transport, etc.,

e^n, is your model: IF THERMITE, THEN STEEL TEMP = 2500C

Is there any way you can imagine that with a small amount of thermite, and given heat transport, that thermite can be used to locally heat steel to between 250C and 650C?

I am amazed everyone face-plants here.

Remember when I first arrived, and everyone said thermite would simply melt through the steel, and I had to do all those stupid little posts saying stuff like, "Do you really think that - just for the sake of discussion - one gram of thermite would melt through steel?"

If I recall, you were guilty. Crazy Bandsaw was guilty. And there were other rush-to-judgment types.


I also believe even your 'shock tube' theory is in serious doubt, indeed this appears to be a grounding wire as with some trivial investigation it turns out the 99th floor section of column 142 was photographed:
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot6.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot6.png)

Your 'shock tube' appears to be screwed into the spandrel panel between columns 142 and 143. Why on earth would this be the case?


Wait, are you saying you THINK it is grounding wire, or that you KNOW it is grounding wire?

And are you saying you THINK the wires are screwed in to the truss seat, or you KNOW the wires are screwed into the truss seat?


Frankly Max


Hey Apollo, if we ever happen to write a paper together, here's our title.


your theory bears all the hallmarks of someone who has simply thought up what they personally believe to be most plausible without doing the requisite research behind it.


e^n, I really sincerely apologize for not taking the time to look inside WTC2 fire-affected perimeter panels for evidence of thermite placed inside those columns.

A Springer marathon was on, and well, you know...



Well I put it to you Max that my familiarity with the evidence seems to be higher than yours, and that in fact the evidence doesn't support this particular section being damaged by thermite at all. Not to mention that this perimeter panel is located on the opposite side to where the building failed and doesn't appear to play any role whatsoever in the collapse:
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot7.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs320&d=07405&f=screenshot7.png)



Says the guy who was unfamiliar with the 8 column splices in a row at WTC2/81/NE.

e^n, you have repeatedly demonstrated your propensity to believe that because you don't understand something, that it is too complex to be possible, or simply doesn't exist.

Consider art classes. They are very good for opening up that little idea generator of yours.


Oh, by the way (and I am dead serious), please name the columns that did play a role the collapse.

I want to see what NIST says about them. (Perhaps you'd be kind enough to get me started with some references.)



When a theory involves only supposition and incidental characteristics and provides no firm logical basis for testing


If you say that one more time...


MAX-MIHOP IS TESTABLE!!!

JUST LOOK INSIDE THE FIRE-AFFECTED BOX COLUMNS OF WTC2!

AND WHILE YOUR AT IT, EXPLAIN THE SPOLIATION.



nor an easily understandable history of derivation


It's perfectly understandable to me.


the most likely assumption is it is based on an incorrect premise.


The above is simply nonsensical.


This is my summation of your theory Max. It's not meant to be offensive or insult you as a person


I never take any of this personally e^n, but thanks for your considerate preamble.


but I fail to see any redeeming value to MAX-MIHOP.


Kudos to your clear, direct stance.


To me, it seems like you just invented it because you believe in controlled demolition but couldn't resolve it with the NIST report.


Absolutely true.


If this is not the case I welcome you to keep presenting evidence, but I suggest in [the] future you provide a more rigorous basis for your assumptions.


If I'm correct, but my assumptions didn't have a rigorous basis, will you still love me?


Thanks for your participation e^n.

I welcome more from you.

Cheers!

Max Making It Up As He Goes Along Photon


P.S. Is it getting brighter in here, or is it just me?

* * *

[omegablue]

AAhhh those anti-truthers are a show arent them?!?!?! They just nitpick, run in circles , use bad rhetoric, and just pretend there is no suspicious attitudes towards how the evidence was destroyed or analyzed, or overlooked.

[uruk]

Well at least you're smarter than Oprah, and can admit that evidence WAS destroyed
How long do you think they should have hung on to 200,000 tones of steel?

Good grief, it's not like they built the Great Wall of China.
How long do you think they needed to take to study the steel?





e^n, since they COULD have missed something the first time through, wasn't it a clear case of spoliation?

In ALL other crime scenes, isn't evidence preserved exactly because new information, perspectives, etc., might come to the fore, making seemingly information-free evidence suddenly extremely valuable? (For God's sake, please say yes.) Evidence is usually returned to owners or destroyed after a period of time after the trial has ended. And I believe there are still sections of the steel still available for additional study in memorial museums and other like places.

Of course I'm making it up! That's why I call it MAX-MIHOP. (Is that confusing?) Seems like you should base that sort of thing on reaserch and experimentation.
It might give MAX-MIHOP alittle more wieght.


Wow, everyone seems so lost about temperature, heat transport, etc.,

e^n, is your model: IF THERMITE, THEN STEEL TEMP = 2500C

Is there any way you can imagine that with a small amount of thermite, and given heat transport, that thermite can be used to locally heat steel to between 250C and 650C?

I am amazed everyone face-plants here.

Remember when I first arrived, and everyone said thermite would simply melt through the steel, and I had to do all those stupid little posts saying stuff like, "Do you really think that - just for the sake of discussion - one gram of thermite would melt through steel?"
Do you know how long one gram of thermite takes to combust? Do you know how much heat it could tranfere to the thermal mass of the steel in the amount of time one gram of thermite burns?
If you have can you show us the calculations?

Wait, are you saying you THINK it is grounding wire, or that you KNOW it is grounding wire?

And are you saying you THINK the wires are screwed in to the truss seat, or you KNOW the wires are screwed into the truss seat? The picture e^n provided shows a cable that looks remarkably like your thermite dusted shock tube bolted to the spandrel
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot6.png.xs.jpg

Says the guy who was unfamiliar with the 8 column splices in a row at WTC2/81/NE. Did you take a look at the diagram e^n provided?
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot7.png.xs.jpg
It shows where N8 is in refrence to the plane impact.

e^n, you have repeatedly demonstrated your propensity to believe that because you don't understand something, that it is too complex to be possible, or simply doesn't exist. MAX-MIHOP is not really all that hard to understand.

Oh, by the way (and I am dead serious), please name the columns that did play a role the collapse.

I want to see what NIST says about them. (Perhaps you'd be kind enough to get me started with some references.) Here's a start:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session2/2Gayle.pdf
It talks about heat damage and SFRM damage visible from video and photographs before the collapse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Amen to that.




(Nothing does.)

* * *
Then why do you keep bringing it up? Address his arguments. If you continue to personalize the issue by bringing up pomeroo's occupation I will be forced to start reporting your posts as breach of civility.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

AAhhh those anti-truthers are a show arent them?!?!?! They just nitpick, run in circles , use bad rhetoric, and just pretend there is no suspicious attitudes towards how the evidence was destroyed or analyzed, or overlooked.
Nice handwaving. Any plans on posting an argument that is a little less vapid?

[Max Photon]

How long do you think they should have hung on to 200,000 tones of steel?


Well, the IRS expects us to keep tax records indefinitely.

Just try telling an auditor you didn't need them any longer.


Let's try a different tack...

If your family members were murdered, and the murderer was still at large, how long would you like them to keep the evidence?


How long do you think they needed to take to study the steel?


Well, it's been six years and there is still no WTC7 report (and, in case you didn't notice, it was a related event.)


How long do they take to investigate commercial airline crashes?


Studies could have and should have been conducted for decades to come.


Evidence is usually returned to owners or destroyed after a period of time after the trial has ended.


uruk, I'm kind of slow.

When did the trial end?


And I believe there are still sections of the steel still available for additional study in memorial museums and other like places.


From fire-affected panels from WTC2?

Sweet! Please post where. I will go ASAP!


Seems like you should base that sort of thing on reaserch and experimentation.


Well I built a full-scale model of the towers, flew a couple of jets into them, and then looked in box columns, and sure enough, I found evidence of thermite!


It might give MAX-MIHOP alittle more wieght.


Max Photon travels light.



Do you know how long one gram of thermite takes to combust?


Any thermite recipe in particular?


Do you know how much heat it could tranfere to the thermal mass of the steel in the amount of time one gram of thermite burns? If you have can you show us the calculations?


No problemo (since you don't seem to know your way around).

Check NIST FAQ #12


The picture e^n provided shows a cable that looks remarkably like your thermite dusted shock tube bolted to the spandrel
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot6.png.xs.jpg


Yeah, that's because you're looking at N8.

(Are you at a pub or something?)


Did you take a look at the diagram e^n provided?
http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/screenshot7.png.xs.jpg
It shows where N8 is in refrence to the plane impact.


And?

Good grief, do you think I don't know where N8 comes from?

uruk, yet again, you are shadow boxing images in YOUR head.


MAX-MIHOP is not really all that hard to understand.


Then start demonstrating that fact.


Here's a start:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session2/2Gayle.pdf
It talks about heat damage and SFRM damage visible from video and photographs before the collapse.


That is not what I asked e^n.


uruk, you are obviously intelligent, but you are consistently off track, thought I suspect you'll get more on track over time, because you are a decent fellow.

Regardless, I appreciate your participation, and welcome more.

Cheers!

Max

* * *

[uruk]

Well, the IRS expects us to keep tax records indefinitely.

Just try telling an auditor you didn't need them any longer. I've heard three to five years. I could be mistaken


Let's try a different tack...

If your family members were murdered, and the murderer was still at large, how long would you like them to keep the evidence? Untill after the trial ended. There are no statutes of limitations on murder trials





Well, it's been six years and there is still no WTC7 report (and, in case you didn't notice, it was a related event.) The WTC report is coming. Just be patient. You wouldn't want them to make any mistakes.


How long do they take to investigate commercial airline crashes? Untill they've found the reason the plane crashed.


studies could have and should have been conducted for decades to come. Why is that? They've pretty much found the answers they were looking for.
The only people who are still wanting an investigation are people like you who believe the government is involved. To re-open the investigation you need to provide proof that the government was responsible. Conjecture is not going to open those doors. Hard evidence will.
And besides there is still evidence available if you know where to look.





uruk, I'm kind of slow.

When did the trial end? Do you mean the Moussaoui trial? Or the official government investigation? The investigation is over as far as WTC 1&2 is concerned.





From fire-affected panels from WTC2?

Sweet! Please post where. I will go ASAP!
According to this article there are more than 1000 pieces of steel from the WTC in storage at JFK Intl. airport.:http://www.1010wins.com/pages/899632.php?

According to this report FEMA over saw the collection of steel for further study.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

So it seems that key pieces of steel are in storage for further study.




Well I built a full-scale model of the towers, flew a couple of jets into them, and then looked in box columns, and sure enough, I found evidence of thermite! Ah, Why use an honest answer where faceciousness and sarcasm Will do.





Max Photon travels light. Well, that explains alot.






Any thermite recipe in particular? You choose. It's your hypothesis





No problemo (since you don't seem to know your way around).

Check NIST FAQ #12 It says .13 pounds of thermite to heat 1 pound of steel to 700 degrees. How many pounds of steel are in the connection joints?





Yeah, that's because you're looking at N8.

(Are you at a pub or something?) Well, There was alot of repetition in engineering design. All the columns and sections look remarkably the same. Could there be a reason for that?





And?

Good grief, do you think I don't know where N8 comes from?
uruk, yet again, you are shadow boxing images in YOUR head. Well judging from your reparte, the thought had crossed my mind.



uruk, you are obviously intelligent, but you are consistently off track, thought I suspect you'll get more on track over time, because you are a decent fellow.

Regardless, I appreciate your participation, and welcome more.

Cheers!

Max

* * * Well, Thanks and likewise.

[Max Photon]

Why is that? They've pretty much found the answers they were looking for.





They found the answers they were looking for.

Exactly.


Max

* * *

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They found the answers they were looking for.

Exactly.


Max

* * *
Stop with the equivocation. You know very well that that uruk was not saying that they started from a conclusion and worked backwards; but rather that they were looking for answers and they found answers.

[Max Photon]

Stop with the equivocation. You know very well that that uruk was not saying that they started from a conclusion and worked backwards; but rather that they were looking for answers and they found answers.


Mr. Wolfshade,

You are experiencing - possibly for the first time - humor.

h - u - m - o - r


Try that one more time:

h - u - m - o - r


You see, humor is founded on surprise. Even Aristotle was aware of that.

Now, let me help you.

MAX-MIHOP says that a controlled-demolition plan, and a pre-engineered - a pre-scripted - narrative - were designed together - simultaneously - to create a unified portrait. (Nice use of greys!)

Anyone who understands principles of design understands what I am saying. (Not really. You have to be a total genius, but anyway...)


Now uruk, bless his little soul, does not see the teleology.

Of course I know that is not what he meant.

He knows that.

And you know that.


Everyone knows that.


Now, the tension between the two, creates a form of surprise.

That surprise is experienced as - by those with a brain stem attached to the cortical system - Class? .... Anyone?.....


That's right Frank.

Humor.

H - u - m - o - r.


Arkan, you're a funny guy.

A Mused Max


For more on the subject:

A Message From Max Photon to the Meritorious Engineers of the World - Mind Your DEQs
http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/16/teleology.aspx


(Moderators, I don't believe I've ever linked to this aritcle, so have mercy.)

* * *

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mr. Wolfshade,

You are experiencing - possibly for the first time - humor.

h - u - m - o - r


Try that one more time:

h - u - m - o - r


You see, humor is founded on surprise. Even Aristotle was aware of that.

Now, let me help you.

MAX-MIHOP says that a controlled-demolition plan, and a pre-engineered - a pre-scripted - narrative - were designed together - simultaneously - to create a unified portrait. (Nice use of greys!)

Anyone who understands principles of design understands what I am saying. (Not really. You have to be a total genius, but anyway...)


Now uruk, bless his little soul, does not see the teleology.

Of course I know that is not what he meant.

He knows that.

And you know that.


Everyone knows that.


Now, the tension between the two, creates a form of surprise.

That surprise is experienced as - by those with a brain stem attached to the cortical system - Class? .... Anyone?.....


That's right Frank.

Humor.

H - u - m - o - r.


Arkan, you're a funny guy.

A Mused Max


For more on the subject:

A Message From Max Photon to the Meritorious Engineers of the World - Mind Your DEQs
http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/16/teleology.aspx


(Moderators, I don't believe I've ever linked to this aritcle, so have mercy.)

* * *

You're half right. Your were going for "c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing"*; in that, you fail; but you did manage to land, "a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous"* in the bulk of your posts rather well.

So glad you enjoy making jokes about accusing people of mass murder. Welcome to ignore, *******.

*http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/humor

[Max Photon]

* * *


JREF really ought to consider Nap Time*



*Nap Time is a registered trademark of Max Photon Worldwide Industries, an amalgamated conglomerate focusing on core businesses.

[uruk]

MAX-MIHOP says that a controlled-demolition plan, and a pre-engineered - a pre-scripted - narrative - were designed together - simultaneously - to create a unified portrait. (Nice use of greys!)

Anyone who understands principles of design understands what I am saying. (Not really. You have to be a total genius, but anyway...)

{snip}

For more on the subject:

A Message From Max Photon to the Meritorious Engineers of the World - Mind Your DEQs
http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/16/teleology.aspx


(Moderators, I don't believe I've ever linked to this aritcle, so have mercy.)

* * *

Unfortunately that approach requires far more assumptions. I believe there was a guy named Occam who had a word or two to say about that.

[pomeroo]

Well, the IRS expects us to keep tax records indefinitely.

Just try telling an auditor you didn't need them any longer.


Let's try a different tack...

If your family members were murdered, and the murderer was still at large, how long would you like them to keep the evidence?





Well, it's been six years and there is still no WTC7 report (and, in case you didn't notice, it was a related event.)


How long do they take to investigate commercial airline crashes?


Studies could have and should have been conducted for decades to come.





uruk, I'm kind of slow.

When did the trial end?





From fire-affected panels from WTC2?

Sweet! Please post where. I will go ASAP!





Well I built a full-scale model of the towers, flew a couple of jets into them, and then looked in box columns, and sure enough, I found evidence of thermite!





Max Photon travels light.






Any thermite recipe in particular?





No problemo (since you don't seem to know your way around).

Check NIST FAQ #12





Yeah, that's because you're looking at N8.

(Are you at a pub or something?)





And?

Good grief, do you think I don't know where N8 comes from?

uruk, yet again, you are shadow boxing images in YOUR head.





Then start demonstrating that fact.





That is not what I asked e^n.


uruk, you are obviously intelligent, but you are consistently off track, thought I suspect you'll get more on track over time, because you are a decent fellow.

Regardless, I appreciate your participation, and welcome more.

Cheers!

Max

* * *


Uh, Max, we've noted that there is absolutely no evidence for your thermite fantasy. We've also noticed that you're not a scientist of any sort.
How long will your desperate attempt to pretend that "evidence" was destroyed continue? What agency tasked with finding out why the buildings fell has complained about a lack of steel samples?

Don't be shy, Max--show us your thermite evidence.

[Max Photon]

* * *


This paper by Dr. Frank Greening (Apollo20) is germane to this thread:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf); (rev. June, 2006)


Apollo20 might have titled his paper:

Uncle Frank's Hydrogen-Helper:
Using Improvised Phreato-Thermatic Explosions to Knock Off WTC SFRM.


Max

* * *

[uruk]

* * *


This paper by Dr. Frank Greening (Apollo20) is germane to this thread:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf); (rev. June, 2006)


Apollo20 might have titled his paper:

Uncle Frank's Hydrogen-Helper:
Using Improvised Phreato-Thermatic Explosions to Knock Off WTC SFRM.


Max

* * *

Well his paper sounds a hell of alot more plausible than thermite deposited in column joints ignited by thermite dusted shock tubes.

Interesting to see what other scientist think of his paper.

[uruk]

Oh yea, I forgot to add that if the points brough up in the paper did happen, That would tend to support that there was no planned demolition of the towers. And reinforce the idea that that the plane crashes were responsible for the building collapses

[Drs_Res]

Hey Max,

Did you figure out the problem with your "Lasers" yet?

[Max Photon]

Hey Max,

Did you figure out the problem with your "Lasers" yet?


The "problem" the good Doctor is bringing up is that laser light is not white.

My response is that the white flashes are not from the laser light itself, but from the ignition of the aluminum in the thermite-dusted shock-tube.

Max

* * *

[Unsecured Coins]

do you have a picture of a shock tube? I gotta see one

[Max Photon]

* * *

Here is an excerpt from Apollo20's paper:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf).


Quoting B. Davy:

"...it is more than just a steam explosion that can result. The aluminum-water reaction [Max's phreato-thermatic explosion] that occurs with molten aluminum is highly exothermic, and will cause the aluminum to detonate with greater energy release than an equivalent weight of TNT."


Let that in!

Collect 1kg of beer cans
Melt them.
Take a wiz on the concoction.

You'll get an explosion greater than from 1kg of TNT!

(Trust me, I've tried it.)


I find amazing that the flying aluminum beer cans that were Flights 175 and 11 had more potential energy stored in the aluminum than in an equivalent weight of TNT!

That is incredible.


It is also incredible that MILDEC had the audacity to exploit that energy source.

MILDEC's audacity can from their game theory findings that indicated that only a handful of people on earth would be able to see the jets' aluminum as an improvised explosive/incendiary device.


MILDEC knows how to use incredulity as a cloaking device. (This is related to MILDEC's knowing how to exploit Ockham's Razor as a cloaking device.)


Unbelievable-to-the-Max


P.S. Great paper, Apollo!

* * *

[Unsecured Coins]

so.... it wasn't jet fuel... it was urine!

Urethra!... er... Uleaka! oh man... I mean eureka!

[pomeroo]

* * *

Here is an excerpt from Apollo20's paper:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf).


Quoting B. Davy:

"...it is more than just a steam explosion that can result. The aluminum-water reaction [Max's phreato-thermatic explosion] that occurs with molten aluminum is highly exothermic, and will cause the aluminum to detonate with greater energy release than an equivalent weight of TNT."


Let that in!

Collect 1kg of beer cans
Melt them.
Take a wiz on the concoction.You'll get an explosion greater than from 1kg of TNT!

(Trust me, I've tried it.)



We do believe you. It may the only thing you've ever written that rings true.





I find amazing that the flying aluminum beer cans that were Flights 175 and 11 had more potential energy stored in the aluminum than in an equivalent weight of TNT!

That is incredible.


It is also incredible that MILDEC had the audacity to exploit that energy source.

MILDEC's audacity can from their game theory findings that indicated that only a handful of people on earth would be able to see the jets' aluminum as an improvised explosive/incendiary device.


MILDEC knows how to use incredulity as a cloaking device. (This is related to MILDEC's knowing how to exploit Ockham's Razor as a cloaking device.)


Unbelievable-to-the-Max


P.S. Great paper, Apollo!

* * *



Lay off the brewskis, Doc.

[uruk]

You do know that the process that Apollo describes in his paper does not imply or suggest that any covert operation was involved.
It just simply states that all the ingrediants were present in the impact event to create and ad hoc thermite reaction (if you will) that added to the destructive energy of the impact and subsequent conflagration.

His paper would actually support the "offical" description of events. He is just pointing out something that the NIST may have missed.

[Unsecured Coins]

Lay off the brewskis, Doc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/rookie.jpg


that's my kid, he's not drunk, he fell asleep in his high chair and I planted the bottles for the picture.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Unsecured Coin, pretty cute!

- - -

Speaking of phreato-thermatic explosions...

Just think, if a jet had 50 tons of aluminum, and if only, say, 10% were sufficiently powderized upon impact to ignite, and if water were present, then the explosive force from the aluminum would be greater than from 5 tons of TNT.

Note that this would only require 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide. (Just think of a sandbox, 10'x10' x 1' deep.)


Now in the world of BlackOps, is planting 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide impossible?


MaxNoir

* * *

[Mr. Skinny]

Note that this would only require 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide. (Just think of a sandbox, 10'x10' x 1' deep.)


Now in the world of BlackOps, is planting 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide impossible?

Not impossible, but pretty stupid to think that the aircraft could actually hit that sandbox with enough accuracy to create the reaction, IMHO.

I'd say throw that idea on your garbage pile of unreasonable theories, Max.

[Max Photon]

Not impossible, but pretty stupid to think that the aircraft could actually hit that sandbox with enough accuracy to create the reaction, IMHO.

I'd say throw that idea on your garbage pile of unreasonable theories, Max.



Do we know the both the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?


* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *


I wonder if a phreato-thermatic explosion with an equivalent yield greater than 5 tons of TNT would have knocked off any SFRM?


Max

* * *

[Mr. Skinny]

Do we know the both the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?


* * *
Are you saying that the airliners were computer-guided to the target? Yes or No?

Don't you already have enough strange theories floating about, or are you proposing a new one?

[Max Photon]

Are you saying that the airliners were computer-guided to the target? Yes or No?

Don't you already have enough strange theories floating about, or are you proposing a new one?



Yes, I am saying the jets were computer-guided.

Good grief! We put a rover on Mars. Is computer-guiding a jet - like - Star Trek?


Anyway, while Mr. Skinny tries to get some three-dimensional ideas into his one-dimensional mind, can anyone comment on the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?

0.001 meters?
0.01 meters?
0.1 meters?
1 meter?
10 meters?
100 meters?
1000 meters?


Ma +/- x

* * *

[Mr. Skinny]

Yes, I am saying the jets were computer-guided.

Good grief! We put a rover on Mars. Is computer-guiding a jet - like - Star Trek?


Anyway, while Mr. Skinny tries to get some three-dimensional ideas into his one-dimensional mind, can anyone comment on the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?

0.001 meters?
0.01 meters?
0.1 meters?
1 meter?
10 meters?
100 meters?
1000 meters?Ma +/- x

* * *
Holy *****' ell, Max. What an arrogant answer. When have I ever shown this degree of arrogance toward you? Do you think you make yourself look smarter by trying to make me look stupid?

Of course I'm aware that an aircraft can be flown without a pilot. The USAF has many remotely piloted aircraft that are used to tow targets, etc. They also have remote controled aircraft like the Predator which I'm fairly certain are capable of navigation by GPS systems.

Since my mind is so one-dimensional and yours is so 3D, why don't you provide us with the answer to your own question. Must we research everything for you?

Cheers!

Skinny

****

[Apollo20]

On December 1st, 1984, a Boeing 720 transport aircraft weighing 192,000 lbs and traveling at 151.5 knots (Yes knots!!), was part of a CID (Controlled Impact Demonstration) at Edwards Airforce Base in California. The remotely controlled aircraft was planned to impact the ground with a symmetric 1 degree nose-up attitude at a 17 f/s sink rate. In addition, so-called tank traps were set up on the ground to shear the wings off. As it turned out, the aircraft actually hit the ground slightly yawed and rolled (left-wing down) by 13 degrees, and the tank traps cut through an engine. Nevertheless, based on photographs I have seen, I would say the aircraft impact was within 10 feet of its planned target... And that was accomplished in 1984!

[A W Smith]

On December 1st, 1984, a Boeing 720 transport aircraft weighing 192,000 lbs and traveling at 151.5 knots (Yes knots!!), was part of a CID (Controlled Impact Demonstration) at Edwards Airforce Base in California. The remotely controlled aircraft was planned to impact the ground with a symmetric 1 degree nose-up attitude at a 17 f/s sink rate. In addition, so-called tank traps were set up on the ground to shear the wings off. As it turned out, the aircraft actually hit the ground slightly yawed and rolled (left-wing down) by 13 degrees, and the tank traps cut through an engine. Nevertheless, based on photographs I have seen, I would say the aircraft impact was within 10 feet of its planned target... And that was accomplished in 1984!


10 feet?
-7153063417253151597&hl=en

[Max Photon]

* * *

Nice shot of the NIST Report.


Back to the topic...

Where are the herds of know-it-alls?

Here, I'll just make up a number, as enticement...


In 2007, computer-guided commercial jets can be brought to targets with both precision and accuracy of +/- 10 meters.


Anyone for 1m or less?

Anyone for 100m or more?


x ax Max ax x

* * *

[Mr. Skinny]

* * *

Nice shot of the NIST Report.


Back to the topic...

Where are the herds of know-it-alls?

Here, I'll just make up a number, as enticement...


In 2007, computer-guided commercial jets can be brought to targets with both precision and accuracy of +/- 10 meters.


Anyone for 1m or less?

Anyone for 100m or more?


x ax Max ax x

* * *
Nothing new about that.

[pomeroo]

Yes, I am saying the jets were computer-guided.

Good grief! We put a rover on Mars. Is computer-guiding a jet - like - Star Trek?


Anyway, while Mr. Skinny tries to get some three-dimensional ideas into his one-dimensional mind, can anyone comment on the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?

0.001 meters?
0.01 meters?
0.1 meters?
1 meter?
10 meters?
100 meters?
1000 meters?Ma +/- x

* * *



Have you read Apathoid's paper (available on 911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more") describing the enormous difficulties involved in attempting to fly Boeing 757s and 767s by remote control?

Of course I'm kidding, you silly goose!

[Max Photon]

Yes, I am saying the jets were computer-guided.

Good grief! We put a rover on Mars. Is computer-guiding a jet - like - Star Trek?


Anyway, while Mr. Skinny tries to get some three-dimensional ideas into his one-dimensional mind, can anyone comment on the precision and accuracy with which a jet can be computer-guided to a target?

0.001 meters?
0.01 meters?
0.1 meters?
1 meter?
10 meters?
100 meters?
1000 meters?


Ma +/- x

* * *


I suspect we can safely narrow the list a bit:


+/- 0.1 meters?
+/- 1 meter?
+/- 10 meters?

Max

* * *

[Apollo20]

Ok, let me say that my estimate of 10 feet may be a little optimistic... However, it all depends on where the desired impact point is assumed to be.... the photograph of the B720 impact, (in the 1984 CID test), that I am holding in my left hand right now, (while I type with my right!), shows the nose of the aircraft when it hit the ground was pretty much lined-up with the target, but perhaps the plane did hit the ground a little too soon and a bit too far to the right. The "pilot" presumably tried to correct this targeting error by banking the plane to the left at the last moment, but he was too low and the left wing hit the ground.

I think, in the last few moments of its trajectory, Flight 175 found itself too far to the right on the face of WTC 2 but because hitting the ground was not a problem the aircraft could safely bank hard left just before impact. At impact NIST estimate that Flight 175 had its left wing down 38 degrees.

Thus life does indeed imitate art..............

[Max Photon]

* * *

So if a commercial jet can be computer-guided to a target within, say, +/- 5 meters, is it possible that iron-oxide and water could have been successfully planted in front of the oncoming jets?

Max


* * *

[Max Photon]

Ok, let me say that my estimate of 10 feet may be a little optimistic... However, it all depends on where the desired impact point is assumed to be.... the photograph of the B720 impact, (in the 1984 CID test), that I am holding in my left hand right now, (while I type with my right!), shows the nose of the aircraft when it hit the ground was pretty much lined-up with the target, but perhaps the plane did hit the ground a little too soon and a bit too far to the right. The "pilot" presumably tried to correct this targeting error by banking the plane to the left at the last moment, but he was too low and the left wing hit the ground.

I think, in the last few moments of its trajectory, Flight 175 found itself too far to the right on the face of WTC 2 but because hitting the ground was not a problem the aircraft could safely bank hard left just before impact. At impact NIST estimate that Flight 175 had its left wing down 38 degrees.

Thus life does indeed imitate art..............



...and the diagonals created by the offset column splices of perimeter panels.


* * *

[beachnut]

On December 1st, 1984, a Boeing 720 transport aircraft weighing 192,000 lbs and traveling at 151.5 knots (Yes knots!!), was part of a CID (Controlled Impact Demonstration) at Edwards Airforce Base in California. The remotely controlled aircraft was planned to impact the ground with a symmetric 1 degree nose-up attitude at a 17 f/s sink rate. In addition, so-called tank traps were set up on the ground to shear the wings off. As it turned out, the aircraft actually hit the ground slightly yawed and rolled (left-wing down) by 13 degrees, and the tank traps cut through an engine. Nevertheless, based on photographs I have seen, I would say the aircraft impact was within 10 feet of its planned target... And that was accomplished in 1984!
The test was not the remote control, it was for fire/fuel (crashworthiness) safety. Zero use for 9/11. Zip.

One must recall the planes on 9/11 were hand flown by terrorist. 757/767 are not remote control capable in the passenger configurations on 9/11. A simple fact Max avoids by just posting crap on 9/11. At least you play nice with the researched challenged people posting insane ideas on 9/11.

[beachnut]

* * *

So if a commercial jet can be computer-guided to a target within, say, +/- 5 meters, is it possible that iron-oxide and water could have been successfully planted in front of the oncoming jets?

Max

* * *
Not on 9/11; the jets were hand flown. They hit random points on the WTC. There is no remote control on 9/11 of the commercial jets; they were stock. Did you miss something about 9/11? This is a CT forum, not Disney fantasy land for insane ideas on 9/11. Do you have some facts to support your insane ideas?

[A W Smith]

the planes were not configured for remote control on 9/11
Sorry max, you fail. Again
H.U.M.O.U.R.
try a unicyle next time max

[Max Photon]

* * *

So you guys are claiming that the jets were hand-piloted - at those speeds?

Oooookay.


ETA: Really? Including 175's hard left?

Those terrorists-with-a-touch were also mighty strong.

* * *

[A W Smith]

* * *

So you guys are claiming that the jets were hand-piloted at those speeds?

Oooookay.


* * *

Mix-up Max
No we are not claiming. It is a fact.
perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
what you have max are fantasies. Not facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy
please familiarize yourself with these two definitions and try not to mix them up

[beachnut]

* * *
So you guys are claiming that the jets were hand-piloted - at those speeds?

Oooookay.

ETA: Really? Including 175's hard left?

Those terrorists-with-a-touch were also mighty strong.
* * *
Yes Max, they were hand flown. There is no magic button for hitting buildings for the autopilot; there was no computer controlled impact on 9/11.

At those speeds? Please tell me what is the difference? I have hand flown a jet from 0 to 550 knots, it was not very hard. The fact is the planes on 9/11 were going standard flying speeds for Jet aircraft except for 10 to 20 seconds at the end of each flight.

I flew using just finger pressure and trim. You are not very informed about flying; and it matches your other ideas on 9/11.

What do you mean strong?

[Max Photon]

* * *

Fine, you guys say hand-flown.


By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Because a little birdie told you?


* * *

[Pardalis]

May I ask why the asterisks?

Is it because you see stars floating around you head?

[beachnut]

* * *

Fine, you guys say hand-flown.


By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Because a little birdie told you?


* * *
Max, I am glad you asked that question. Flight 93 was hand flown into the ground. The FDR, (flight data recorder) shows the plane was hand flown. Darn. Plus the things 93 did at the end of flight are easier done by hand.

Flight 77, also shows hand flying on the FDR. You can tell from the witnesses talking about the flight it was being hand flown.

How do you think the planes were flown?

[uruk]

* * *

Fine, you guys say hand-flown.


By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Because a little birdie told you?


* * *

Investigations and evidence trail.
What have you got?
Bad humor?

[Reality Believer]

Fine, you guys say hand-flown.
By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Cat III autoland does not work without an ILS beacon.

And that it the only system that is factually installed on most commercial aircraft that is capable of controlling the decent profile of a landing aircraft.

[Pardalis]

Investigations and evidence trail.
What have you got?
Bad humor?

He's got asterisks, what have you got?

[beachnut]

* * *
Fine, you guys say hand-flown.

By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Because a little birdie told you?
* * *
Cute; No Max it was not a bird that told me. I have flown for over 34 years. I have trained pilots who fly in the airlines today. Just from witness statements it is clear the plane was being had flown. But we have data from the aircraft itself.

Flight 77 was not on autopilot for the last part of the flight near DC. The data recovered from the plane show: "at 9:29, at 7,000 feet and about 30 miles from the Washington Reagan National Airport, the autopilot and autothrottle were disengaged and remained off to impact. This means the plane was had flown. Like I said, the witness statements are indicative of plane hand flown. Sorry Max, no remote control to support the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth.

No hard flying on 9/11.

Flight 93 terrorist left the autothrottle on for the whole flight; kind of dumb. They turned off the autopilot for the last three minutes.

11 and 175 could have been on autopilot, but hand flying would be as easy or more comfortable for someone trying to hit a target. The autopilot would be guided by the pilot, there are no navigation aids to make the planes hit the WTC, and the navigation system on the plane would be only accurate to 2,000 or more feet; That would pretty much make hitting the WTC impossible.
But a pilot can use the autopilot turn knob to fly the plane, but he also has to run the wheel to descend, or set an altitude on the system. Much easier to hand fly. The autothrottle could be on for 11 and 175, but the pilots shoved the engines up in the last 10 or 20 seconds you can hear the engines and both planes were pushed past their normal top speeds.

I am saying there is no system to guide flight 11 and 175 into the WTC tower except the terrorist pilots. They supplied the inputs by hand, even if the autopilot was ON. The terrorist pilots were responsible for the impacts; no computers or outside help.

[uruk]

Max, I am glad you asked that question. Flight 93 was hand flown into the ground. The FDR, (flight data recorder) shows the plane was hand flown. Darn. Plus the things 93 did at the end of flight are easier done by hand.

Flight 77, also shows hand flying on the FDR. You can tell from the witnesses talking about the flight it was being hand flown.

How do you think the planes were flown?

If the planes had been flown by computer the path and angles would have been smoother instead of erratic.

[uruk]

He's got asterisks, what have you got?

I've got rhythm. And this thing ======> ~

[Reality Believer]

I've got rhythm. And this thing ======> ~

Who could ask for anything more?

[gumboot]

* * *

So you guys are claiming that the jets were hand-piloted - at those speeds?

Oooookay.


ETA: Really? Including 175's hard left?

Those terrorists-with-a-touch were also mighty strong.

* * *


Never heard of power steering?

-Gumboot

[Max Photon]

Yes Max, they were hand flown. There is no magic button for hitting buildings for the autopilot; there was no computer controlled impact on 9/11.

At those speeds? Please tell me what is the difference? I have hand flown a jet from 0 to 550 knots, it was not very hard. The fact is the planes on 9/11 were going standard flying speeds for Jet aircraft except for 10 to 20 seconds at the end of each flight.

I flew using just finger pressure and trim. You are not very informed about flying; and it matches your other ideas on 9/11.

What do you mean strong?


Beachnut,

If you are able to watch internet video, and if you have time, could you please watch and comment on the following video.

Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78
(9:40 minutes)
(The first 1:30 is filler. Then pilots get to discussing the topic.)

I know nothing about the sponsors or the veracity of this video.


Beachnut, you being a pilot, I would be very interested to hear your comments.

Cheers!

Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

Remember, just because the jets appeared to be hand-piloted does not mean the jets were hand-piloted.

As someone with experience in seismology, I know about generating synthetic seismograms.

Generating synthetic flight paths and behavior would be similar.

It would be a trivial affair to have a strategic flight path, and then to decorate that path with that hand-crafted touch, to give the illusion of human-guidance.


* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

Fine, you guys say hand-flown.


By the way, how do you know for a fact the jets were hand-flown?

Because a little birdie told you?


* * *



Now, Doc, you know the drill. You get increasingly desperate and start obscuring your original absurdities with wilder and sillier falsehoods. We bring you down to earth by repeating a simple request that you doggedly ignore. Let's try it again:

Apathoid has written a detailed paper explaining why speculation that Boeing 757s or 767s were flown by remote control is uninformed. You haven't read the paper. It might be a good idea if you tried:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

[A W Smith]

* * *

Remember, just because the jets appeared to be hand-piloted does not mean the jets were hand-piloted.

As someone with experience in seismology, I know about generating synthetic seismograms.

Generating synthetic flight paths and behavior would be similar.

It would be a trivial affair to have a strategic flight path, and then to decorate that path with that hand-crafted touch, to give the illusion of human-guidance.


* * *

No you can't you have no idea of what the air density and atmospheric conditions are along the route. Flaps and rudder adjustments at different air densities and altitudes will have different results. Any pre-planned acrobatics would alter the course especially the last banking turn into the south tower. there would be no time to correct. it would have been a miss.

[A W Smith]

* * *

So if a commercial jet can be computer-guided to a target within, say, +/- 5 meters, is it possible that iron-oxide and water could have been successfully planted in front of the oncoming jets?

Max


* * *
Quickly Max. I am half mile from flying into this building. Point out to me which floor I am to impact into to find the 100 cubic feet of iron oxide. I am traveling at 500 MPH. I have 3.6 seconds to choose my target and correct my flight path

[MIKILLINI]

Max, really you should visit the site Pomeroo has displayed for you, and Beechnut will confirm any other questions you have of this subject. Your theory of remote-controlled aircraft is busted.

[pomeroo]

Quickly Max. I am half mile from flying into this building. Point out to me which floor I am to impact into to find the 100 cubic feet of iron oxide. I am traveling at 500 MPH. I have 3.6 seconds to choose my target and correct my flight path



Superb putdown of an uninformed poseur. Bullseye!

[beachnut]

Beachnut,
If you are able to watch internet video, and if you have time, could you please watch and comment on the following video.

Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78
(9:40 minutes)
(The first 1:30 is filler. Then pilots get to discussing the topic.)
I know nothing about the sponsors or the veracity of this video.

Beachnut, you being a pilot, I would be very interested to hear your comments.
Cheers!
Max* * *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P4t are nut cases! Rob Balsamo seems to be mentally ill; why did you pick his junk?

I took kids into a simulator and they hit the WTC first time; no previous flight training. The guy talking about missing buildings is not a very good pilots, the terrorist did it first time in a real plane. Sad pilots, Rob and his lies; you sure are good at picking insane ideas about 9/11. Good job.

The guy on this show is a liar, or all his friends are incompetent pilots. Like I said, I placed kids who never flew into a jet simulator and they hit the WTC first try; no previous flight training. Remember the terrorist actually were commercial rated pilots. That is not new pilots. The terrorist also studied the planes they were to fly, the even BOUGHT time in simulators; and as these idiots you made me listen to said, the simulator is just like the plane; I have to agree, the simulator is like the plane, and it is even harder to fly the simulator! Sad Pilots 4 truth are really Pilots for $.

The dutch roll was damped in the 767/757, sorry, Rob Balsamo is a liar and nuts. Rob does not understand flying, he is grounded. Grounded; washed up; washed out!

The jet is easier to fly than a little airplane; going 300 knots in the airliner is the briar-patch for the jets used on 9/11; they love 300 knots, that is why the rookies were doing 300 knots, it was what the plane likes.

I can fly the jets, or similar jets, planes weighing 300,000 pounds going 500 mph, and just use my finger tips to control it, all day long; And I could do things more difficult than the terrorist did, and hopefully much smoother.

It is amazing Rob ever learned to fly, he is a total idiot on 9/11.

Aileron reversal! Not, the planes were not over speed for longer than 10 to 20 seconds, and the planes did not suffer from this.

I think you have found the biggest pile of BS on the flying done on 9/11. This single radio show proves Rob Balsamo is unable to think rationally and solve anything about 9/11. Funny because he has decoded the FDR which proves the FDR was from flight 77. Funny how you truth inclined fools debunk yourself with crazy ideas.

Everything these guys said was wrong. Good job, you found total junk.

[Max Photon]

* * *


Thanks for your input!

Max


* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *


Anyone ever heard of the Kalman Filter?


* * *

[beachnut]

* * *


Anyone ever heard of the Kalman Filter?


* * *
I have a masters in Electrical Engineering, Stochastic Estimation and Control (do you think Kalman filters were studied?). Your idea on 9/11 are full of junk and you are being silly when you mention control theory as you do. Sorry you have failed trying to make up false ideas about 9/11 and integrate control theory (I do not think you understand control theory or Kalman filters; Rudolf would be upset). Your misuse of control theory sucks.

[beachnut]

* * *Thanks for your input!

Max* * *
You are welcome, I am glad you see the Pilots 4 truth are liars about 9/11.

[Max Photon]

I have a masters in Electrical Engineering, Stochastic Estimation and Control (do you think Kalman filters were studied?). Your idea on 9/11 are full of junk and you are being silly when you mention control theory as you do. Sorry you have failed trying to make up false ideas about 9/11 and integrate control theory (I do not think you understand control theory or Kalman filters; Rudolf would be upset). Your misuse of control theory sucks.



And I studied marketing (and physics), and marketing is - if you cut the crap - psychological control engineering.

MILDEC is marketing, weaponized

MILDEC is psychological control engineering, weaponized.


Both marketing and MILDEC represent perception and expectation control engineering.


Given that:

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there...

expectation managers - who can control what people expect - can control what people see.

See?

Max C.

* * *

[pomeroo]

And I studied marketing (and physics), and marketing is - if you cut the crap - psychological control engineering.

MILDEC is marketing, weaponized

MILDEC is psychological control engineering, weaponized.


Both marketing and MILDEC represent perception and expectation control engineering.


Given that:

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there...

expectation managers - who can control what people expect - can control what people see.

See?

Max C.

* * *


Once again, you're letting us see you sweat. Tell us what errors Apathoid makes in his paper, Doc.

[MIKILLINI]

And I studied marketing (and physics), and marketing is - if you cut the crap - psychological control engineering.

MILDEC is marketing, weaponized

MILDEC is psychological control engineering, weaponized.


Both marketing and MILDEC represent perception and expectation control engineering.


Given that:

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there...

expectation managers - who can control what people expect - can control what people see.

See?

Max C.

* * *

Gee Max, your sounding more like a Manchurian candidate. If you tend to use web sites such as pilots for truth as your source, then your hypothesis keeps on deteriorating.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Let's see...where are we:


NIST says the jets were broken up into thousands of fragments. Some portion of the jets' aluminum must have been powderized.
Studies of aluminum-water reactions show that the aluminum can rob water of its oxygen, leaving hydrogen, which can explode.
For a given amount of aluminum, the yield produced by an aluminum-water reaction is greater than that produced by an equivalent weight of TNT.
The tiniest thermite spark can ignite a phreato-thermatic explosion.
Phreato-thermatic explosions account for the energy deficit relative to the energy needed to knock off SFRM.
Apollo20 showed that NIST acceleration profile of WTC2, and the (simple inverse [sic]) deceleration profile of the jet, have no physical basis in reality.


Interesting.


Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *

Let's see...where are we:

NIST says the jets were broken up into thousands of fragments. Some portion of the jets' aluminum must have been powderized.
Studies of aluminum-water reactions show that the aluminum can rob water of its oxygen, leaving hydrogen, which can explode.
For a given amount of aluminum, the yield produced by an aluminum-water reaction is greater than that produced by an equivalent weight of TNT.
The tiniest thermite spark can ignite a phreato-thermatic explosion.
Phreato-thermatic explosions account for the energy deficit relative to the energy needed to knock off SFRM.
Apollo20 showed that NIST acceleration profile of WTC2, and the (simple inverse [sic]) deceleration profile of the jet, have no physical basis in reality.
Interesting.


Max

* * *


More scary word salad. Dr. Greening's paper does not lend support to your childish fantasies. Seek medical help, Max.

[Mr. Skinny]

MAXDEC is designed to play with your mind. Don't fall for it.

[uruk]

And I studied marketing (and physics), and marketing is - if you cut the crap - psychological control engineering.

MILDEC is marketing, weaponized

MILDEC is psychological control engineering, weaponized.


Both marketing and MILDEC represent perception and expectation control engineering.


Given that:

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there...

expectation managers - who can control what people expect - can control what people see.

See?

Max C.

* * *

You can fool some of the people some of the time.................

[Max Photon]

* * *

Apollo20,

Have you pondered what NIST's WTC2 acceleration profile (and the jet's deceleration profile) actually describe?


Curious Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

Hi everyone,

Part of the discussion of this thread is whether AA11 and UA175 were remote controlled or non-hand-flown into the towers.

The discussion sort of drifted into a different thread, so I provide the links to the related posts here for continuity.

(I requested that Moderators move the posts, but I got no response.)

So here they are:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139234#post3139234

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139249#post3139249

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139285#post3139285

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139300#post3139300

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139313#post3139313

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139967#post3139967

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3139984#post3139984

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3140449#post3140449

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3140646#post3140646

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3141551#post3141551
(This is an excellent post by Apathoid.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3141581#post3141581

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3141610#post3141610

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3141627#post3141627

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3142206#post3142206

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3142221#post3142221

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3142235#post3142235

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3143056#post3143056

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3143066#post3143066

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3143784#post3143784

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144499#post3144499

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144591#post3144591

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144604#post3144604

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144628#post3144628

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144761#post3144761

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3146834#post3146834

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3146839#post3146839


These two are from a different thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3136481#post3136481

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3136875#post3136875


Max

* * *

[Bell]

(I requested that Moderators move the posts, but I got no response.)

Max, had that happen to me also. It was a matter of me PMing 2 mods, and both mods thought the other took care. Or maybe in your case they maybe overlooked your post, because surpressing the JREF minions (being forum Nazi's and all) takes up a lot of time and effort.

PM one of the mods again. I'm sure they'll merge those posts.

[JMarshall]

I got tired of reading all of Max's 3rd person notations, and rhetoric, so I decided to write a simple dumbed down version of his theory:

Max-MIHOP:

In a NUT shell (Pun intended)

First, read the NIST report, and fill in the supposed gaps using Max’s surreal explanations of the “truth”. Which include:

1. Thermite weakening of the steel supports.
a. Ignited via a brand spanking new, never seen before, unproven, device he calls thermite dusted shock-tube…
b. Which is in turn ignited via an unknown, but powerful, laser weapon, from another building…

2. Sagging floors, from molten steel, though unproven unequivocally, and possible water tanks…
a. Supposedly, his explanation for these water tanks are nefariously placed electrolysis rust generators…
I. Busted open by a sabot style direct-fire missiles. In layman’s terms that means missiles with big heavy solid darts, instead of warheads. This is when the first is fired…

3. The planes, upon impact of the towers, were turned into aluminum powder.
a. Planes were remotely guided, rather than actually piloted…
b. this is the point when the second of Max’s sabot missiles was fired in to order ignite the rust from the rust generators, and the now dust aluminum structure of the aircraft…

4. This ignition of the now created thermite, and the addition of the presence of water, creates a violent thermal reaction resulting in an explosion…
a. With the creation, and ignition of this thermite, pools of molten steel add weight to the floors resulting in the outer support columns to be pulled inward.

5. Upon collapse initiation, the remaining water was released from the undestroyed rust generator tanks.
a. This water supposedly accounts for the water reported in the stairwells, rather than the water being from the sprinkler system…
I. Apparently the water that came in contact with the high temperatures turned into steam, as one would hope so… This steam along with the crumbling substrates of the towers create the so-called pyroclastic flows…

6. After all this he surmises the aluminum was not present to create the “molten” metal as explained by NIST…

7. The rest is your usual, disinfo claims, and denying the official reports rhetoric…

8. Oh and don't forget his latter explination of the events completely ignores his first theories of them...


All in all, it almost seams like he has decided to put too much on his plate and has a hard time staying on the subject of his theories... His "paper", in the least sense of the word, seems more like a vain attempt to gain personal gratification, than any type of theoretical explanation. It smacks of "believe Max Photon"s and "Dare to believe it. (Max did.)", trying to imply he is nothing short than the right hand of God almighty, and knows the truth.

My only conclusion... WHAT THE...? I would say Sigmund Freud would have a heyday with this one.

[Max Photon]

I got tired of reading all of Max's 3rd person notations, and rhetoric, so I decided to write a simple dumbed down version of his theory:

Max-MIHOP:

In a NUT shell (Pun intended)

First, read the NIST report, and fill in the supposed gaps using Max’s surreal explanations of the “truth”. Which include:

1. Thermite weakening of the steel supports.
a. Ignited via a brand spanking new, never seen before, unproven, device he calls thermite dusted shock-tube…
b. Which is in turn ignited via an unknown, but powerful, laser weapon, from another building…

2. Sagging floors, from molten steel, though unproven unequivocally, and possible water tanks…
a. Supposedly, his explanation for these water tanks are nefariously placed electrolysis rust generators…
I. Busted open by a sabot style direct-fire missiles. In layman’s terms that means missiles with big heavy solid darts, instead of warheads. This is when the first is fired…

3. The planes, upon impact of the towers, were turned into aluminum powder.
a. Planes were remotely guided, rather than actually piloted…
b. this is the point when the second of Max’s sabot missiles was fired in to order ignite the rust from the rust generators, and the now dust aluminum structure of the aircraft…

4. This ignition of the now created thermite, and the addition of the presence of water, creates a violent thermal reaction resulting in an explosion…
a. With the creation, and ignition of this thermite, pools of molten steel add weight to the floors resulting in the outer support columns to be pulled inward.

5. Upon collapse initiation, the remaining water was released from the undestroyed rust generator tanks.
a. This water supposedly accounts for the water reported in the stairwells, rather than the water being from the sprinkler system…
I. Apparently the water that came in contact with the high temperatures turned into steam, as one would hope so… This steam along with the crumbling substrates of the towers create the so-called pyroclastic flows…

6. After all this he surmises the aluminum was not present to create the “molten” metal as explained by NIST…

7. The rest is your usual, disinfo claims, and denying the official reports rhetoric…

8. Oh and don't forget his latter explanation of the events completely ignores his first theories of them...


All in all, it almost seams like he has decided to put too much on his plate and has a hard time staying on the subject of his theories... His "paper", in the least sense of the word, seems more like a vain attempt to gain personal gratification, than any type of theoretical explanation. It smacks of "believe Max Photon"s and "Dare to believe it. (Max did.)", trying to imply he is nothing short than the right hand of God almighty, and knows the truth.

My only conclusion... WHAT THE...? I would say Sigmund Freud would have a heyday with this one.



1. Thermite weakening of the steel supports.

I use the term "heat-weakening" to help differentiate it from "cutting" or "melting".


a. Ignited via a brand spanking new, never seen before, unproven, device he calls thermite dusted shock-tube…

Max Photon-brand, to be precise. Think of it as a simple thermite fuse.


b. Which is in turn ignited via an unknown, but powerful, laser weapon, from another building…

I have posited laser-ignition of the thermite-dusted shock-tube. There could be other ignition mechanisms.


2. Sagging floors, from molten steel,

Incorrect. Sagging floors from molten iron on top of the concrete slabs, and from fires below the trusses that had SFRM dislodged by the collision and the phreato-thermatic, or aluminum-water explosion.


though unproven unequivocally, and possible water tanks…

...or from water in the building's water system.


a. Supposedly, his explanation for these water tanks are nefariously placed electrolysis rust generators…

...or the reaction was from the water in the building's water system.


I. Busted open by a sabot style direct-fire missiles. In layman’s terms that means missiles with big heavy solid darts, instead of warheads. This is when the first is fired…

I no longer need the sabots, and have dropped them. (I'll explain why below.)


3. The planes, upon impact of the towers, were turned into aluminum powder.

I initially said "all," which was silly, and have revised that to "a significant proportion," say 1/10th to 1/5th.

The landing gears served to throw up a screen of iron oxide and water in front of the oncoming aluminum powder.

Natural thermite sparks from the collision (ala Greening) ignited the "improvised thermite".

Note that to consume 1/10th of the aluminum (5 tons) only requires 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide (assume full density).


a. Planes were remotely guided, rather than actually piloted…

"Not hand-flown" is one way to put it.

Another key point is that predetermined points on the towers were targeted.


b. this is the point when the second of Max’s sabot missiles was fired in to order ignite the rust from the rust generators, and the now dust aluminum structure of the aircraft…

Again, the sabots were dropped.


4. This ignition of the now created thermite, and the addition of the presence of water, creates a violent thermal reaction resulting in an explosion…

Correct. Apollo20 provided references for aluminum-water reactions. A feature of such reactions is that it can generate a hydrogen explosion (in addition to the aluminum burning).

The yield of such reactions can exceed an equivalent weight of TNT (relative to the weight of the aluminum burned).

The two main purposes of the phreato-thermatic explosions were to:

Provide the extra energy to knock off SFRM. (Loss of SFRM is KEY to NIST's narrative.)
Create visually-spectacular explosions, so that the images could be fed into the media circuitry, and then - using nonlinear feedback in the media - be used to create resonance in the public mind (resonance in such emotions as blind hatred, jingoism, vengeance, etc.).


a. With the creation, and ignition of this thermite,

I call it "improvised thermite" to differentiate it from "planted thermite".


pools of molten steel

iron


add weight to the floors

...as the iron flowed to low spots.

The iron heated the floor trusses through the concrete, causing sagging. The weight of the iron also contributed to the sagging.


resulting in the outer support columns to be pulled inward.

You left out that thermite was planted inside perimeter panel box columns, spandrel splice gaps, in the "rectangular tube" created where two floor truss top cords meet at the truss seat, and at gusset seats.

The planted thermite was linked and ignited by thermite-dusted shock-tube. The shock-tube, or thermite fuse, was ignited by laser.

The functions of the planted thermite were to:

Heat the steel to just below 625 C.
Create fires on piles of debris that were visible on the exterior
Create fires that appeared to migrate naturally.


It is the combination of sagging floors (from heat from above and below, from loss of SFRM, and from extra weight), and heat-weakened columns and splices on the impact floors, that caused perimeter panel box columns to bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse.

Here is a KEY passage from NIST FAQ #2

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.




5. Upon collapse initiation, the remaining water was released from the undestroyed rust generator tanks.

...and/or the building's water system.


a. This water supposedly accounts for the water reported in the stairwells, rather than the water being from the sprinkler system…

I am not saying there was no water from the sprinkler system, but rather that this could be another source.


I. Apparently the water that came in contact with the high temperatures turned into steam, as one would hope so… This steam along with the crumbling substrates of the towers create the so-called pyroclastic flows…

Correct. And to be clear, the high temperatures are from the fires, hot steel members, thermite product, AND from the thermite reactions that were taking place at core connections (where horizontal members met core columns) right before and during the actual collapse.


6. After all this he surmises the aluminum was not present to create the “molten” metal as explained by NIST…

I retract or revise that. Since not all of the aluminum was consumed, aluminum would be present.

However, I do not believe the molten metal flows was molten aluminum.

The argument against it was put for by Jerry Lobdill. The idea is that molten aluminum will simply flow away from the heat source unless contained. That means it is unlikely molten aluminum could be much hotter than 660 C, which does not glow yellow to orange (which were the colors of the metal flows).

It is argued that the metal flows could not be molten iron because iron is frozen at the temperatures associated with yellow to orange.

However, the Fe-S system has a eutectic point (at about 32% S) that is just below 1000 C. This means that the iron-sulfur product from certain thermate recipes can still flow at yellow to orange.

Jones claims he experimentally verified that thermate product flows at orange. (I don't believe his recipes were exactly at 32% S, but close to it.)


7. The rest is your usual, disinfo claims, and denying the official reports rhetoric…

8. Oh and don't forget his latter explanation of the events completely ignores his first theories of them...

All in all, it almost seams like he has decided to put too much on his plate and has a hard time staying on the subject of his theories... His "paper", in the least sense of the word, seems more like a vain attempt to gain personal gratification, than any type of theoretical explanation. It smacks of "believe Max Photon"s and "Dare to believe it. (Max did.)", trying to imply he is nothing short than the right hand of God almighty, and knows the truth.

My only conclusion... WHAT THE...? I would say Sigmund Freud would have a heyday with this one.

And I with him.



JMarshall, I'd give you an A because you were shooting at my moving target, which is not your fault.

Kudos to you!

I have been wanting to do a summary - a [I]MAX-MIHOP for Dummies - so your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

1. Thermite weakening of the steel supports.

I use the term "heat-weakening" to help differentiate it from "cutting" or "melting".


a. Ignited via a brand spanking new, never seen before, unproven, device he calls thermite dusted shock-tube…

Max Photon-brand, to be precise. Think of it as a simple thermite fuse.


b. Which is in turn ignited via an unknown, but powerful, laser weapon, from another building…

I have posited laser-ignition of the thermite-dusted shock-tube. There could be other ignition mechanisms.


2. Sagging floors, from molten steel,

Incorrect. Sagging floors from molten iron on top of the concrete slabs, and from fires below the trusses that had SFRM dislodged by the collision and the phreato-thermatic, or aluminum-water explosion.


though unproven unequivocally, and possible water tanks…

...or from water in the building's water system.


a. Supposedly, his explanation for these water tanks are nefariously placed electrolysis rust generators…

...or the reaction was from the water in the building's water system.


I. Busted open by a sabot style direct-fire missiles. In layman’s terms that means missiles with big heavy solid darts, instead of warheads. This is when the first is fired…

I no longer need the sabots, and have dropped them. (I'll explain why below.)


3. The planes, upon impact of the towers, were turned into aluminum powder.

I initially said "all," which was silly, and have revised that to "a significant proportion," say 1/10th to 1/5th.

The landing gears served to throw up a screen of iron oxide and water in front of the oncoming aluminum powder.

Natural thermite sparks from the collision (ala Greening) ignited the "improvised thermite".

Note that to consume 1/10th of the aluminum (5 tons) only requires 100 cubic feet of iron-oxide (assume full density).


a. Planes were remotely guided, rather than actually piloted…

"Not hand-flown" is one way to put it.

Another key point is that predetermined points on the towers were targeted.


b. this is the point when the second of Max’s sabot missiles was fired in to order ignite the rust from the rust generators, and the now dust aluminum structure of the aircraft…

Again, the sabots were dropped.


4. This ignition of the now created thermite, and the addition of the presence of water, creates a violent thermal reaction resulting in an explosion…

Correct. Apollo20 provided references for aluminum-water reactions. A feature of such reactions is that it can generate a hydrogen explosion (in addition to the aluminum burning).

The yield of such reactions can exceed an equivalent weight of TNT (relative to the weight of the aluminum burned).

The two main purposes of the phreato-thermatic explosions were to:

Provide the extra energy to knock off SFRM. (Loss of SFRM is KEY to NIST's narrative.)
Create visually-spectacular explosions, so that the images could be fed into the media circuitry, and then - using nonlinear feedback in the media - be used to create resonance in the public mind (resonance in such emotions as blind hatred, jingoism, vengeance, etc.).
a. With the creation, and ignition of this thermite,

I call it "improvised thermite" to differentiate it from "planted thermite".


pools of molten steel

iron


add weight to the floors

...as the iron flowed to low spots.

The iron heated the floor trusses through the concrete, causing sagging. The weight of the iron also contributed to the sagging.


resulting in the outer support columns to be pulled inward.

You left out that thermite was planted inside perimeter panel box columns, spandrel splice gaps, in the "rectangular tube" created where two floor truss top cords meet at the truss seat, and at gusset seats.

The planted thermite was linked and ignited by thermite-dusted shock-tube. The shock-tube, or thermite fuse, was ignited by laser.

The functions of the planted thermite were to:

Heat the steel to just below 625 C.
Create fires on piles of debris that were visible on the exterior
Create fires that appeared to migrate naturally.
It is the combination of sagging floors (from heat from above and below, from loss of SFRM, and from extra weight), and heat-weakened columns and splices on the impact floors, that caused perimeter panel box columns to bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse.

Here is a KEY passage from NIST FAQ #2

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.




5. Upon collapse initiation, the remaining water was released from the undestroyed rust generator tanks.

...and/or the building's water system.


a. This water supposedly accounts for the water reported in the stairwells, rather than the water being from the sprinkler system…

I am not saying there was no water from the sprinkler system, but rather that this could be another source.


I. Apparently the water that came in contact with the high temperatures turned into steam, as one would hope so… This steam along with the crumbling substrates of the towers create the so-called pyroclastic flows…

Correct. And to be clear, the high temperatures are from the fires, hot steel members, thermite product, AND from the thermite reactions that were taking place at core connections (where horizontal members met core columns) right before and during the actual collapse.


6. After all this he surmises the aluminum was not present to create the “molten” metal as explained by NIST…

I retract or revise that. Since not all of the aluminum was consumed, aluminum would be present.

However, I do not believe the molten metal flows was molten aluminum.

The argument against it was put for by Jerry Lobdill. The idea is that molten aluminum will simply flow away from the heat source unless contained. That means it is unlikely molten aluminum could be much hotter than 660 C, which does not glow yellow to orange (which were the colors of the metal flows).

It is argued that the metal flows could not be molten iron because iron is frozen at the temperatures associated with yellow to orange.

However, the Fe-S system has a eutectic point (at about 32% S) that is just below 1000 C. This means that the iron-sulfur product from certain thermate recipes can still flow at yellow to orange.

Jones claims he experimentally verified that thermate product flows at orange. (I don't believe his recipes were exactly at 32% S, but close to it.)


7. The rest is your usual, disinfo claims, and denying the official reports rhetoric…

8. Oh and don't forget his latter explanation of the events completely ignores his first theories of them...

All in all, it almost seams like he has decided to put too much on his plate and has a hard time staying on the subject of his theories... His "paper", in the least sense of the word, seems more like a vain attempt to gain personal gratification, than any type of theoretical explanation. It smacks of "believe Max Photon"s and "Dare to believe it. (Max did.)", trying to imply he is nothing short than the right hand of God almighty, and knows the truth.

My only conclusion... WHAT THE...? I would say Sigmund Freud would have a heyday with this one.

And I with him.



JMarshall, I'd give you an A because you were shooting at my moving target, which is not your fault.

Kudos to you!

I have been wanting to do a summary - a [I]MAX-MIHOP for Dummies - so your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Max

* * *



MAX-MIHOP for Dummies is redundant.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

MAX-MIHOP for Dummies is redundant.
Didja hafta quote the whole freakin' post?

[Max Photon]

Max, had that happen to me also. It was a matter of me PMing 2 mods, and both mods thought the other took care. Or maybe in your case they maybe overlooked your post, because surpressing the JREF minions (being forum Nazi's and all) takes up a lot of time and effort.

PM one of the mods again. I'm sure they'll merge those posts.


I was denied, twice.


* * *

[Belz...]

MAX-MIHOP

Sounds like the name of a cyborg model.

I watch too much science-fiction.

[JMarshall]

Correct. Apollo20 provided references for aluminum-water reactions. A feature of such reactions is that it can generate a hydrogen explosion (in addition to the aluminum burning).

The only thing you are forgetting about aluminum/water reactions is the fact that Gallium is added to the Aluminum, supplanting the thin Aluminum Oxide skin that naturally and quite quickly forms on Aluminum. But when Gallium is added to metals it changes the metals crystal structure, making it very brittle. The aluminum would no longer be of grade to be used in the construction of an aircraft...

[Bell]

I was denied, twice.


* * *

No response again, or did the mods send you a PM?

[Max Photon]

No response again, or did the mods send you a PM?




My first request was met with no-response.

The second request - by PM - was met with a PM that said the no-response was because moderators did not see a problem.


* * *

[pomeroo]

Didja hafta quote the whole freakin' post?


I thought it was a neat effect.

[Max Photon]

Okay guys, time to put on your (XS) thinking caps.

Consider two scenarios:


A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball.
A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball AND a (significant) hydrogen gas explosion.

Question:

How will the two fireballs differ?

[JimBenArm]

Okay guys, time to put on your (XS) thinking caps.

Consider two scenarios:

A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball.
A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball AND a (significant) hydrogen gas explosion.Question:

How will the two fireballs differ?
I think it's methane, not hydrogen. From all the BS in this thread.

[twinstead]

Okay guys, time to put on your (XS) thinking caps.

Consider two scenarios:

A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball.
A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball AND a (significant) hydrogen gas explosion.Question:

How will the two fireballs differ?

So how exactly would you know?

[beachnut]

Okay guys, time to put on your (XS) thinking caps.

Consider two scenarios:

A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball.
A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball AND a (significant) hydrogen gas explosion.Question:

How will the two fireballs differ?
Off topic reported!

[soylent]

Okay guys, time to put on your (XS) thinking caps.

Consider two scenarios:


A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball.
A jet crashes into a tower, and there is a jet-fuel explosion/fireball AND a (significant) hydrogen gas explosion.

Question:

How will the two fireballs differ?

I'd guess:

Hydrogen in the building:
It would have to be outside the range of ~18% to ~59% which are the limits for detonation of a hydrogen/air mixture; that would result in a massive detonation ringing out over lower manhattan and blowing out all the windows of the entire floors that were affected in a massive hail of glass shrapnel. If it was higher than 59% everyone on those floor would have felt short of breath and evacuated/cracked a window, so that's no good. If it was between 4% and 18% it would have burnt in a non-explosive fashion and likely have ignited all the office paper and the like as well as causing some smaller explosions at the ceiling level where hydrogen gas concentrations would have been higher.

Hydrogen tanks in the plane: I think it would ignite before mixing properly with air and just add some extra fuel to the fireball.

[Dave Rogers]

How will the two fireballs differ?

Have you ever heard a hydrogen explosion, even a small one? Hydrogen burns hot and fast. Even just lighting a hydrogen burner produces a very sharp, high-pitched popping sound that's quite unmistakeable. It didn't happen on 9-11.

Dave

[Max Photon]

Have you ever heard a hydrogen explosion, even a small one? Hydrogen burns hot and fast. Even just lighting a hydrogen burner produces a very sharp, high-pitched popping sound that's quite unmistakeable. It didn't happen on 9-11.

Dave


Apollo's paper Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf) quotes B. Davy who says,

"...the reaction of Al with iron oxide is one of the most exothermic thermite reactions. However, it is important to note that aluminum undergoes exothermic reactions not only with oxides, but also with hydroxides, of which water is a special example. In this case hydrogen gas is produced..."

"The aluminum-water reaction that occurs with molten aluminum is highly exothermic, and will cause the aluminum to detonate with greater energy release than an equivalent weight of TNT."

[Max Photon]

It got awfully quiet out there.

[T.A.M.]

you can just restart that conversation you were having with yourself earlier...lol

TAM;)

[jhunter1163]

How could anyone possibly differentiate a (hypothetical) hydrogen explosion from a jet fuel explosion?

Max is just throwing out scenarios that produce explosions without giving any thought as to whether the scenario is even theoretically possible.

[achtung circus]

It got awfully quiet out there.

Just waiting for the next reincarnation of Rube Goldberg.

[Max Photon]

Look children, I am asking a simple question. And the reason I am asking the simple question is because I don't know the answer, and - not being a child - I thought I'd ask.

So I'll try again...

How would two WTC fireballs/explosions visually differ - (if at all) - if one included an aluminum/water explosion?

As we ponder this question, bear in mind that NIST sees nothing untoward in the jet crash explosion/fireballs because the observed fireballs roughly match the cartoon produced by NIST's models.

But what if an aluminum/water explosion adds energy without much visual difference? Perhaps an aluminum/water explosion could slip under the radar of NIST's modeling.

(Note that this contradicts what I posited earlier - that the phreato-thermatic explosions could be used - as one function - to visually enhance the explosions. However, this was a secondary function; knocking off SFRM was the primary function.)

[pomeroo]

If this thread were a horse, it would have been shot long ago.

[twinstead]

If this thread were a horse, it would have been shot long ago.

If Max were a horse, he'd be a unicorn.

[pomeroo]

If Max were a horse, he'd be a unicorn.


Well, Max is part of a horse.

[A W Smith]

So hows the writers strike affecting this thread.????


Is Max in re-runs or gone to infomercial?

[soylent]

So I'll try again...

How would two WTC fireballs/explosions visually differ - (if at all) - if one included an aluminum/water explosion?

It'd take some time to melt the airplane aluminium into puddles and then you'd need to find a good source of water to pour on the aluminium. I wouldn't expect it to have a part in the initial fireball.

There are some who think secondary explosions at the pentagon were due to airplane aluminium reacting with water from the sprinklers.

In any case, what would be surreptitious about aircrafts being made of aluminium or office buildings containing water? Seems to me you're just advancing a plausible explanation for some secondary explosions in the WTC.

[MIKILLINI]

Reruns. Max is in the NIST, World Trade Center collapse hypothesis.
But Max's mode of transportation hasn't really arrived. What that means is Max believes there were no hijackers and the airliners were remote-controlled.
Therefore Max's transportation hasn't really arrived....I'm sending smoke signals to you Max. You really have not explained or proved anything convincing enough to warrant consideration of the remote-controlled airliners.
So if you can't get this critical, pre-collision aspect off the ground and into tangible evidence territory, then your hypothesis foundation is missing a major building block.

[MIKILLINI]

Well, Max is part of a horse.

Like the south end going north? :p

[T.A.M.]

Max:

you do realize name calling, such as calling grown adults "children", is in itself childish.

You were the one who said it was quiet in here, and you have been known to have conversations with yourself on this forum...

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

How do a molten-aluminum/water interaction, and a burning-aluminum/water interaction differ?

[MIKILLINI]

How do a molten-aluminum/water interaction, and a burning-aluminum/water interaction differ?

Max are you trying out for the next Batman movie as the Riddler?

I would guess that burning aluminum is hotter than molten aluminum, therefore when mixed into water, the reaction would be more volatile.

[Max Photon]

Max are you trying out for the next Batman movie as the Riddler?



I have simply posed some questions to the community, and would value peoples' responses.

[A W Smith]

I have simply posed some questions to the community, and would value peoples' responses.
you're Jim Carrey aren't you?

[Max Photon]

Here is another question:

If the F4 Phantom crash test were modified such that the jet collided into water tanks just before hitting the concrete block, would the aluminum explode?

Note that molten aluminum reacts explosively with water, as the water becomes an oxidizer.

Also note that Crazy Chainsaw has argued several time that strong shock or vibration can in effect melt aluminum particles, negating the protection of the aluminum oxide layer. If an oxidizing agent such as rust or water is present, the aluminum can ignite explosively.

Water is of particular interest because after the aluminum swipes the oxygen, hydrogen gas is left, adding to the explosive force.

[A W Smith]

Here is another question:

If the F4 Phantom crash test were modified such that the jet collided into water tanks just before hitting the concrete block, would the aluminum explode?

Note that molten aluminum reacts explosively with water, as the water becomes an oxidizer.

Also note that Crazy Chainsaw has argued several time that strong shock or vibration can in effect melt aluminum particles, negating the protection of the aluminum oxide layer. If an oxidizing agent such as rust or water is present, the aluminum can ignite explosively.

Water is of particular interest because after the aluminum swipes the oxygen, hydrogen gas is left, adding to the explosive force.

Oh yeah.. The Flow Water jet system cuts aluminum plate all the time by exploding the aluminum :rolleyes: Go Watch Max. theres even a video

http://www.thefabricator.com/IndDir/Showroom.cfm?ID=1988

[USAFMXOfficer]

Didja ever notice how a Max Photon Thread is like a car accident?

You know it's going to be horrible but you just can't look away......

[MIKILLINI]

you're Jim Carrey aren't you?

:dl:

USAFMXOfficer
Didja ever notice how a Max Photon Thread is like a car accident?

You know it's going to be horrible but you just can't look away......


Welcome to this forum, US.
Max is running through his hypothesis of collapse mechanisms. It's a process that gets repeated in order to arrive at a superior model, eliminating bits and pieces that cannot sustain the chain reaction of events subsequently leading to total collapse of the towers.
Max is determined to convince people that he has a superior model compared to the NIST version.
It should be noted that Max believes 9/11 was conducted by a really super secret shadow organization who set up the whole chain of events that day.
Bear in mind that in order to arrive at this conclusion, Max's hypothesis needs MIHOP to hold up his theory. And these are the details of the collapse mechanisms he's trying to convince people with.

[Max Photon]

Welcome to this forum, US.
Max is running through his hypothesis of collapse mechanisms. It's a process that gets repeated in order to arrive at a superior model, eliminating bits and pieces that cannot sustain the chain reaction of events subsequently leading to total collapse of the towers.
Max is determined to convince people that he has a superior model compared to the NIST version.
It should be noted that Max believes 9/11 was conducted by a really super secret shadow organization who set up the whole chain of events that day.
Bear in mind that in order to arrive at this conclusion, Max's hypothesis needs MIHOP to hold up his theory. And these are the details of the collapse mechanisms he's trying to convince people with.


Thanks Mikillini. I would add:

Thermite fuse ignited by jet impact also works beautifully with LIHOP. A net could have covered the towers, so that wherever the jets hit, the fuses could be ignited to induce thermite-based heat-weakening only on impact floors. So, despite what Mikillini says, my collapse initiation mechanisms do not depend on MIHOP, and do not depend on remote controlled jets.

Second, I am not trying to convince people of anything. People convince themselves. I'm just trying to make people think.

Third, even if MAX-MIHOP is incorrect, there is tremendous value in pushing different hypotheses are far as they can go. Even models that ultimately fail often reveal the strengths and weaken of superior models. More important, the clash of models can trigger major revelations.

Fourth, "inside job" is a possible solution to the problem. Therefore, it is important to prove up the best possible inside job scenario. That is what MAX-MIHOP tries to do.

[pomeroo]

Thanks Mikillini. I would add:

Thermite fuse ignited by jet impact also works beautifully with LIHOP. A net could have covered the towers, so that wherever the jets hit, the fuses could be ignited to induce thermite-based heat-weakening only on impact floors. So, despite what Mikillini says, my collapse initiation mechanisms do not depend on MIHOP, and do not depend on remote controlled jets.

Second, I am not trying to convince people of anything. People convince themselves. I'm just trying to make people think.

Third, even if MAX-MIHOP is incorrect, there is tremendous value in pushing different hypotheses are far as they can go. Even models that ultimately fail often reveal the strengths and weaken of superior models. More important, the clash of models can trigger major revelations.

Fourth, "inside job" is a possible solution to the problem. Therefore, it is important to prove up the best possible inside job scenario. That is what MAX-MIHOP tries to do.


No thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. It's time you stopped lying.

[A W Smith]

Second, I am not trying to convince people of anything. People convince themselves. I'm just trying to make people think.




Yeah it makes people think alright. It makes people think troofers are ***** idiots. Check that. It makes them KNOW they are ***** idiots.

[MIKILLINI]

Thermite fuse ignited by jet impact also works beautifully with LIHOP. A net could have covered the towers, so that wherever the jets hit, the fuses could be ignited to induce thermite-based heat-weakening only on impact floors. So, despite what Mikillini says, my collapse initiation mechanisms do not depend on MIHOP, and do not depend on remote controlled jets.

Second, I am not trying to convince people of anything. People convince themselves. I'm just trying to make people think.

You know, these statements do make Me think. I remember you ending many of your posts as MAX-MIHOP. I don't remember any as MAX-LIHOP.

For some odd reason Max, the statements above give Me an initial perception of a disclaimer. Why is that?